[rfc-i] Errata proposal

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 05:56:05 PDT 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug at acm.org> wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> On 08/20/2012 06:04 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I really can't care much about canonical.
>> Right is much more important to me.
> Right is not highjacking this thread with irrelevant stuff.  Thanks.

Like your pointless comment above.

My comment was totally on topic for the errata discussion.

Joe still has this 'cannonical' bugaboo in his belfry and my point is
that what I care about is getting accurate information out to
engineers implementing the spec,

The version of the spec I want my engineers reading is the one that
has the existence of corrections at least noted on the page where they
should occur.

The whole biz about canonical is just self important puffery in my
view. People thinking that they are creating works of scripture for
the ages. That is not what Requests For Comments are or should be.
They are merely engineering notes that are a tool to create correct

Anyone who loses sight of that fact is doing us all a disservice.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list