Den 02. jan. 2015 19:46, skrev Brian E Carpenter: > On 03/01/2015 06:10, Nico Williams wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 11:04:55AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: >>> Let's just recognize that making rules retroactive to a 40+ year >>> old spec is not likely to be fruitful. [...] >> >> +1. Especially given how useful RFC 20 is. >> >> 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. > > Let's just exhibit the common sense that used to be a characteristic > of the IETF: attach the correct status (Internet Standard) to this > document, which we'd have done 20 years ago without any fuss if we'd > thought of it then, and be done with it. > > Why are we even discussing anything else? Elwyn noted a minor bug in > the text, and he knows how to submit an erratum. > (I've consulted RFC20 a zillion times, without the slightest need > to look at the phantom appendices.) > > Brian > Errata for the win! An erratum saying "the text points to appendixes that are actually in the ANSI standard it talks about" should be sufficient. Showing that the IETF is a pragmatic organization is, IMHO, more important than finding those appendixes.