--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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