Errata section considered kludgy

[mzabaluev]

This is a collection of documents maintained as a git repository. Errors in the text can be fixed in PRs and attested in revision history. As such, there is no need for a separate Errata section, furthermore, it breaks the natural reading of the specification and can be overlooked.

I suggest replacing this section in the document templates with a "Changes" section listing major revisions and updates.

[apenzk]

i am in favour and aggree. it is also a duplication of the discussions in the PR that drive the changes.

How about putting the changes section at the bottom of the document and pointing to (closed and successful "update") PRs?. The PR contains a better explanation and more accessible insight into what the changes where. it is a one-liner at the bottom.

[l-monninger]

I would suggest keeping an errata for the reason of important conceptual mistakes that are later fixed--not for small polishes. This is so that, in the long run, other proposers, implementers, etc. can refer to a specific erratum.

[apenzk]

as agreed per SF the Errata section will be replaced by a Changelog section, to provide an overview of all kind of changes and the relevant PRs. It provides a versioning to the documents.