> On Oct 17, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2021-10-17, at 14:47, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I have no idea whether permission was obtained to extract
>> and reproduce material from X3.4-1968 to act as the basis for
>> RFC 20 or whether the conclusion at the time was that it was not
>> necessary.
>
> (Random fuzzy recollection: I seem to remember that what made me start campaigning for RFC 20 to be a STD was that I wanted to stop people from referencing X3.4 just in order to avoid a downref.)
>
> We should do this more often.
Wouldn't it have been trivial to add RFC 20 to the downref registry? Of course, there is no need to do it now that it is a standard.
0020 ASCII format for network interchange. V.G. Cerf. October 1969.
(Format: TXT, PDF, HTML) (Also STD0080) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD)
(DOI: 10.17487/RFC0020)
Russ
