--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir
<ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com> wrote:
This means that there would be two documents with the same RFC
number. The quasi-leagal "as published" one, and the one of
the tools site. Which should I follow when I go to implement?
Exactly
If the errors amount to something that would really make a
difference in implementation, you really need a new RFC, and
can't handle this in an erratum.
See for example RFC 4753. The erratum changed bits on the
wire, so a replacement RFC (5903) had to be published.
And, if I correctly understood it at the time, that is exactly
why the RFC Editor opposed the idea of formal errata for years.
If there were real, substantive, errors, a replacement RFC
should be published as soon as practical. For anything else,
the most that was desirable would be a collected list of
comments and suggestions that could be considered if/when the
document was revised.
john