[rfc-i] What, never!?
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 11:49:18 PST 2010
On 2010-02-17 08:20, Sean Turner wrote:
> I have to ask: Who found and errata in RFC 68?
That, I can't tell you. But I found an error in the
very first header line of RFC 86.
(OK, it was the result of a Google search for something else
entirely, but I just *knew* that nobody called S. Croker
was writing RFCs in 1971 :-)
((OK, OK, I was Googling for the Imlac PDS-1, a device I worked
with very many years ago, and was amazed to get hits for RFCs
by both Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf.))
P.S. I think that the Acting RSE's new policy is correct.)
> Bob Braden wrote:
>> As you know, RFCs never change once published. However, the
>> RFC-online process, that has been re-entering the "lost" early RFCs,
>> brings up an exception.
>> We recently got an Errata report for RFC 68, an RFC-online document
>> that has been restored. We have generally tried hard to avoid NEW
>> errors creeping into the restored documents, but in the case of RFC 68
>> we failed.
>> Policy: an errata report for an error that existed in the original
>> version of a restored RFC will be retained as an erratum and the error
>> will be left in the repository. However, if the errata report
>> specifies a transcription error that was added during restoration of
>> the document online, then the RFC Editor will change the restored
>> document to remove the transcription error.
>> Thus, the RFC Editor will fix RFC 68 and delete the corresponding
>> errata report.
>> Bob Braden
>> Acting RFC Series Editor
>> Gilbert & Sullivan: "What, never!? No, never! What, never!? ..."
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest