Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 03/01/2015 06:10, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 11:04:55AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Let's just recognize that making rules retroactive to a 40+ year
>> old spec is not likely to be fruitful.  [...]
> 
> +1.  Especially given how useful RFC 20 is.
> 
> Let's demonstrate agility and pragmatism here.  Promote RFC 20 after a
> small effort to ascertain the RFC-Editor's current electronic version's
> faithfulness to such "original" paper copies as might be found.  Or even
> *without* such an effort: publish any errors found later as errata and
> call it a day.

Let's just exhibit the common sense that used to be a characteristic
of the IETF: attach the correct status (Internet Standard) to this
document, which we'd have done 20 years ago without any fuss if we'd
thought of it then, and be done with it.

Why are we even discussing anything else? Elwyn noted a minor bug in
the text, and he knows how to submit an erratum.
(I've consulted RFC20 a zillion times, without the slightest need
to look at the phantom appendices.)

    Brian