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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sat, 03 January 2015 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 508321A038B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:09:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 AWDXdlDtMYUL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDABC1A0363 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548537C09E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 12:09:20 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id saJmZVcvsZV8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 12:09:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:6e3b:e5ff:fe0b:6ab4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:6e3b:e5ff:fe0b:6ab4]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 739727C05AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 12:09:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54A7CDDC.8060003@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:09:16 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
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> <54A6E77B.2030108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A6E77B.2030108@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RyB5UsJfaC7QEj0Bm5NPMnQrCmc
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: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:09:24 -0000

Den 02. jan. 2015 19:46, skrev Brian E Carpenter:
> 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
> 

Errata for the win!

An erratum saying "the text points to appendixes that are actually in
the ANSI standard it talks about" should be sufficient.

Showing that the IETF is a pragmatic organization is, IMHO, more
important than finding those appendixes.