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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-01-02 19:51, Nico Williams wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>>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?
> >
> >I can see the RFC-Editor's electronic copy.  Can't you?
> 
> I can. Is this the document we are discussing, or is it the paper
> copy? Can somebody check both for differences=

This is the only document we ought to be discussing, as it's the copy
the RFC-Editor has "published" at this time for all intents and purposes
(yes, a different version was once available samizdat-style, but for
today's purposes, the copy that the RFC-Editor *has* on hand *is* the
canonical).

At least barring the RFC-Editor finding a better copy _soon_ and telling
us soon also.  Arguably it's too late for that.

Any paper copies should be for errata purposes only.

> >I'm saying: call the RFC-Editor's electronic copy of RFC 20 _the_
> >canonical copy, promote it to Standard, and publish any errata we can
> >find (e.g., the author's name).
> 
> I'm ok with that if we agree about it.

Me too.

Nico
--