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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 02 January 2015 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643A91A019B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:46:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBkq-vnc1aiY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06E301A0053 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v10so24125570pde.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=whI+Xp7tsuOv0xo81q0DP0wIVYK+VydoMx1We5sxW1I=; b=I8pZYEaP0WW+hvE1hmMB8Sc328d5JF6dh3i2ZHWAKDHz7cYsjrZaAsIb1oEjiou5wn dKR/WMze1UoGTgxy+9OJVtjhRJixwz5lE50W9Xc9/itxj+1rc7vDU18fXl1FVNsLxyrq QC0OQa5wrAhsi4PDub7Vyv3/Q6CTN0S/UUMJKzSv1x39J6Gcf5AjDo5y2D+U5YnkW1Cm 7gdUGTiUjMCcKv3obrFPe7yfMjE+FwPQN2ygn1nNHqHp0VHg8n//gbyvItORfCWqkMMk HWUrQKE0qhWtLQ3EnMLFjaWH6IXhZcDfAIaEpZygFGWHrrsH4eNcD5Ww3/NMXnia8SyT IdqA==
X-Received: by 10.70.5.68 with SMTP id q4mr110812430pdq.47.1420224377285; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4558:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4558:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v8sm47170052pdp.94.2015.01.02.10.46.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54A6E77B.2030108@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:46:19 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices
References: <54A45EA8.2020408@dial.pipex.com> <54A69B1E.60903@gmx.de> <631B2422-3C00-46CC-9D10-E3AED644683C@tzi.org> <EA211F2E8783F1180D89E83D@P5> <20150102171047.GX24442@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20150102171047.GX24442@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-BQhG3PH8pDHHUxrD45WaRncUCI
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 18:46:19 -0000

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