On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--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.
There are still the spelling mistakes and obvious errors. Take for example this
one from RFC 5296:
The EMSKname is in the username part of the NAI and is encoded in
hexadecimal values. The EMSKname is 64 bits in length and so the
username portion takes up 128 octets.
Encoding 64 bits in hex requires 16 octets, not 128. I think anyone
implementing this would figure this out, but it is substantive. The RFC was
being revised anyway, but do you think a replacement RFC would need to be
published if that were not the case?
Yoav