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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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.