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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 02 January 2015 13:20 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 0F9ED1A1B67 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 05:20:42 -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 rBR8OXO-1-0M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 05:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 286FB1A6F5D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 05:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.194] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5cMq-1XvwOU0Hpw-00xZUa; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:20:38 +0100
Message-ID: <54A69B1E.60903@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:20:30 +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: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices
References: <54A45EA8.2020408@dial.pipex.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A45EA8.2020408@dial.pipex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:II81rL2Lo2ipLR3yJDhhhwTNhcp2fqX+Sz+EWYWvRHL6UdUgWb8 hzP8n1bAwat8wcceu7IZZDgFmgGnbq0nVzGl1+mO0r4SEvj6Wkgjnr6GWiE0dssWItWm0OX gGao0g3XWf5MsynEUpx8uEcgfNvX0xLtPIepScYfFFH/8Y86+TK6SyKH+B0Ot0gtubtBIjo d1r2JwLXMVR6s6pG53UeQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/STHtF_SgMbhg7i0n_jwZFHLoR-k
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 13:20:42 -0000

On 2014-12-31 21:38, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi.
>
> There are a number of references to "appendices" in this document  -
> Section 4.2 (footnotes 2 and 3) and Section 6.5, but the version of RFC
> 20 available online at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc20.txt does not
> have any appendices.
>
> It is possible that this is because the appendices were not reproduced
> when the document was put into machine readable form in 1999.  After
> some research, I suspect that in fact the references are to the
> appendices of the American National Standard (ANSI) X3.4-1968 - the
> references in the Section 4.2 footnotes to Appendices A5.2 and B4 almost
> certainly are.  I was unable to access a copy of the original 1968
> version of ANSI X3.4 (it appears that there are copies in the Library of
> Congress and the library at the University of Wisconsin but it's a long
> walk ;-) ). However, I found a facsimile of the 1986 version.  It is
> clear that Appendices A5.2 and B5 (as opposed to B4) contain relevant
> material (the 1977 update was apparently a very minor affair).
>
> If indeed the second case is correct and the RFC document never had any
> appendices, I suggest that an addition is made to the colophon to point
> out where the appendices can be found, that is ANSI X3.4-1968.  This
> doesn't quite cover the wording in Section 6.5 - are we allowed to alter
> this to point to the appendices of   ANSI X3.4-1968?
>
> If the original of RFC 20 did indeed contain these appendices, fixing
> the issue is a bit more tedious.
>
> Happy New Year,
> Elwyn

As attractive it might be to re-classify RFC 20, maybe it's better to 
actually work on a rfc20bis?

Best regards, Julian