Re: radical suggestion
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> Tue, 17 September 2002 11:05 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8HB56L03179 for ietf-822-bks; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unni.dsv.su.se (unni.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.27]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8HB54k03174 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.237.161.149] (dhcp-161-149.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.149]) by unni.dsv.su.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01786; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:04:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: jpalme@mail.dsv.su.se
Message-Id: <p05100302b9ac8a2b6b4b@[130.237.161.149]>
In-Reply-To: <yly9a449cq.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <200209141851.g8EIpm017829@astro.cs.utk.edu> <yly9a449cq.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:40:39 +0200
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: Re: radical suggestion
Cc: ietf-822@imc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
At 13:14 -0700 02-09-14, Russ Allbery wrote: >It's really frustrating to try to code to an amended standard. The W3C >does this from time to time, and I find it almost impossible to keep track >of what the *real* standard is without actually printing out the original >standard and then going through the amendments and noting them on the >printout by hand. This is a problem with the way IETF standards are published - as RFCs which cannot be modified except by publication of a new RFC. And then the new RFC does not really cause any change in the text of the amended RFC. Note that the RFC index sometimes includes phrases like (Obsoletes RFC2543), (Updated by RFC3265) or (Status: Historic). Perhaps this text in the RFC index should also be copied into the heading of the RFC itself? Does the heading of an RFC really contain for example "Status: Draft standard" for a document which is in reality "Historic"? If so, is this right? If not, then the original text of an RFC can in reality be changed after publication! -- Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/
- Re: radical suggestion Jacob Palme
- Re: radical suggestion Philip Hazel
- Re: radical suggestion Keith Moore
- Re: radical suggestion Philip Hazel
- Re: radical suggestion Tony Hansen
- Re: radical suggestion Bruce Lilly
- Re: radical suggestion Keith Moore
- Re: radical suggestion Russ Allbery
- radical suggestion Keith Moore