On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2015-01-02 19:51, Nico Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
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.
So we're supposed to make a decision over a document we currently
can't see?
I can see the RFC-Editor's electronic copy. Can't you?
I can. Is this the document we are discussing, or is it the paper
copy? Can somebody check both for differences=
This is the only document we ought to be discussing, as it's the copy
the RFC-Editor has "published" at this time for all intents and purposes
(yes, a different version was once available samizdat-style, but for
today's purposes, the copy that the RFC-Editor *has* on hand *is* the
canonical).
At least barring the RFC-Editor finding a better copy _soon_ and telling
us soon also. Arguably it's too late for that.
Any paper copies should be for errata purposes only.
I'm saying: call the RFC-Editor's electronic copy of RFC 20 _the_
canonical copy, promote it to Standard, and publish any errata we can
find (e.g., the author's name).
I'm ok with that if we agree about it.
Me too.
Nico
--