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 --