RFC Errata
RFC 1459, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", May 1993
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194
Source of RFC: LegacyArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 4854
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Chase Smith
Date Reported: 2016-11-04
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30
Section 6.2 says:
To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the server back to the client. If there is no channel found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is returned. The exception to this is when a NAMES message is sent with no parameters and all visible channels and contents are sent back in a series of RPL_NAMEREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark the end.
It should say:
To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the server back to the client. If there is no channel found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is returned. The exception to this is when a NAMES message is sent with no parameters and all visible channels and contents are sent back in a series of RPL_NAMREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark the end.
Notes:
RPL_NAMEREPLY does not exist anywhere else in the document, while RPL_NAMREPLY is used 4 times. This is likely a typo.
----- Verifier Notes -----
One of them is clearly a typo, but a little research shows that implementations differ as to which one they use. Best that this be revisited in the unlikely event that the spec is ever revised.