On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:43:28AM +0400, MarcoH wrote:
- Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade "Layer 2 switch" equipment Mandatory support:
Router Advertisement (RA) filtering [RFC4862]
Where this should be probably be a requirement for RFC 6105 which actually is called "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard".
this sounds much more like a content update than an erratum to me. Fixing a - hypothetical - RFC number typo might be an erratum. The IETF (more precisely: the IETF stream in the RFC series) has quite some experience in distinguishing between typos (lexicographic errors), real errata and suggestions for an updated document. An errata process (and while RIPE does not have to follow the IETF model, theirs may serve as an example) should not strive to turn (RIPE) documents into "living" documents. As far as I recollect, RIPE documents have been considered immutable, except that we've never been precise about the 'canonical format'. I'd like to understand what the _real_ underlying problem is. Recommendations evolve, will be updated, superseded or eventually revoked. Anybody seriously relying on 501 needs to be on top of things to the extent that they check whether they are working with the latest wisdom. So maybe some boilerplate text (red herring, rathole, bikeshed) guiding the reader to ``RIPE's list of current RIPE docments'' from within the published document (as of the next version) would be helpful. But now I plea guilty designing a solution around a not well defined problem. -Peter