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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 02 January 2015 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 3BECD1A00EB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 9CXeIskpOkvA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A621A00E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB7710060; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:09:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=BwtwHiXHYtEJQD xpMVAsY6b+3WM=; b=PSPBOeqK5x0x5sjMDd5tOKs79qQl8zsabtEBL0mDisxNdc alNu9u4RflDS8oJvi13Hz2CUE3iRivOmmNm/N9YKqfCe9kCnBSCt8UYkNynxAm+F rGcrnhwJA0rL1B33HKFbg7CAHrmsEX9r58/jyJIalOuewZOD1fKlXr7WHMaNM=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 270E01005D; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:09:49 -0600
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices
Message-ID: <20150102210945.GF24442@localhost>
References: <54A45EA8.2020408@dial.pipex.com> <54A69B1E.60903@gmx.de> <631B2422-3C00-46CC-9D10-E3AED644683C@tzi.org> <EA211F2E8783F1180D89E83D@P5> <20150102171047.GX24442@localhost> <54A6E0AC.1040808@gmx.de> <20150102185113.GA24442@localhost> <54A707E8.4050504@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54A707E8.4050504@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OYB36HXzgDuuWxcSrCJhV4Mcf3c
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, 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 21:09:52 -0000

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
--