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

David Farmer <> Sun, 04 January 2015 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A6C1A1AC2 for <>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:43:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MA23wzGtPnLl for <>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721C61A1ABF for <>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 19:42:57 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] [] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by with SMTP id ar1so18201151iec.30 for <>; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:42:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Dxyzv2bgMB6+5sa7t14BdnKw1Db04ruqeFdCNu7Hn4c=; b=oe594Axi6syYFQccKtTeq4AJ2pR90TpB7a5BgM0g1NflL1AiLd8TueX38dEIISr0wi 1e7ebcy5S+NEhfAU9L/tSmDbrzrC9fVxFk5REOXdPdoQsmdMkarHZljvvo6jVV5rGwNQ hcuzfJcj1GWux4CpjSrGuIpQLeWNqacfFtOxw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:from:subject :date:to; bh=Dxyzv2bgMB6+5sa7t14BdnKw1Db04ruqeFdCNu7Hn4c=; b=NaIscSNV7diV9a0rxsCeOH6FOooC78H/ClpdCr6laejw92BPIvux8KAOPC2AMpn4Of dHEs6v7inbYQPYQPZTzmWBrZ6eF8rUQ108/OYSIuAzeEXaw114kTCHOGWCKqbjmpCaZ1 ZutEOeOykBJS8XBiPDGEBXyLEx1gsAdo0HtyssFPD1H5qMAlmwjureWTJMB+40bOqCFk 8i/mKw1FJ7m5Kh97nnjCdcwxENDzCXJMt0dVKVU4a0AVP6vRMXW/jnMsbEKszN7wbKcK 370o/4qlt90tGfIV8dDVGgmJZ4yyLiZ6GZYPieWCf5Qc+N9Kw475HrKnZZCgD6Kln/oa Li1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmaBKhtQQ+9pSR1kYlvDa061dNAiKcC5LEpUGl3JnFbD9lRg8+qiBjdh140FBNDYIvSHyidSGpsqY+Dei6CaY5zYckqkLKK18kfkoMvv7gvccK2AlHqVPiwgPfFROi5W3Huuzd
X-Received: by with SMTP id t95mr73241700ioe.7.1420335776529; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:42:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id t95mr73241682ioe.7.1420335776163; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:2:5b00:a9f:c8fe:27cd:5f9:3443? ([2601:2:5b00:a9f:c8fe:27cd:5f9:3443]) by with ESMTPSA id x6sm1655349igl.10.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:42:54 -0800 (PST)
References: <20150103192633.19997.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150103192633.19997.qmail@ary.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-208EA478-7086-4792-8F1F-16A0C562790F
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B440)
From: David Farmer <>
Subject: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 19:42:52 -0600
To: John Levine <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 01:43:00 -0000

> On Jan 3, 2015, at 13:26, John Levine <> wrote:
> In article <20150103180808.19797.qmail@ary.lan> you write:
>>> An erratum saying "the text points to appendixes that are actually in
>>> the ANSI standard it talks about" should be sufficient.
> By the way, I don't have a copy of X3.4-1968, but I do have a copy of
> X3.4-1977, which says in the back that it's a minor revision of the
> 1968 edition.  The two footnotes on page 5 appear unchanged in the
> 1977 edition, other than that appendix B4 is now B5, and I can assure
> you that you haven't missed anything you didn't already know.
> R's,
> John

Give that reference copies of x3.4-1968 are few and far between and I don't believe are available electronically anywhere other than RFC 20 itself, I would like to suggest a note in the erratum translating the appendix pointers to x3.4-1977 and that the current version x3.4-1986 contains the differences between it and x3.4-1977.

FYI, an unofficial version of x3.4-1965 was is published in; Communications of the ACM, Volume 8 Issue 4, April 1965, Pages 207-214 and available electronically at;

The article discusses in detail the differences between the proposed version and x3.4-1963. The differences between x3.4-1965 and x3.4-1968 are relatively obvious when you compare the text of RFC 20 with the text in the article, and also easily provides the gist of the x3.4-1968 appendices not provided in RFC 20.

I hope we can put this to bed and promote RFC 20 officially the Internet Standard status it deserves and for all intensive purposes that it is and has been for over 45 years.  Further, I support the erratum with the translation to x3.4-1977 as noted above and the correction to the obvious OCR errors in the reference to x3.4-1968 and the author's name, however humorous they are.

David Farmer     
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952