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=
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.
...
Best regards, Julian