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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 02 January 2015 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 15ABB1A1C05 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:17:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 9jZkj3WW7-Zl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A751A0187 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.121] ([93.217.73.238]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lp3x6-1Xb5sm3qK4-00ex5E; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:17:25 +0100
Message-ID: <54A6E0AC.1040808@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:17:16 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rd/V1FoMUktCQ5nP9Gg1kxZpCahVUqZY2WqT/SWKvfCD2NTHV4s taM9XX9DApNz4ydZ2ZLD3nMfmOP8tUoFrtQ98busJ6itsfA0oNXWBnuxkxBdG6P2y237aI4 J4um4HP/5euF3eq5LknjZRY91EbBqnl/yWVHxl22wg5GTaNJ3hiYB5Zzi77kBbUJUBeopYh JP51LknKfVm35LWm7MwSQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2KjgAXYAokBRGx7WAyazfN9WJAk
Cc: 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 18:17:33 -0000

On 2015-01-02 18:10, 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.

So we're supposed to make a decision over a document we currently can't see?

Best regards, Julian