[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Mar 4 21:09:35 PST 2014


Paul Hoffman asked me to forward my comment below to this list.

Regards,   Martin.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:01:05 +0900
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: json at ietf.org

I saw the announcement for the new RFC (7159). For the record, although
I understand the basic idea behind the policy that RFCs are never
changed, I think it would have been much wiser to just make the change
in place.

In the long run (in this case, my guess would be that this means more
than one week), the implications would have been much smaller than
having to live with two virtually identical RFCs with numbers differing
only by 1 for a long time.

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: Needless to say that the best would have to be to avoid the
mistake in the first place.

P.P.S.: W3C has a policy for very limited in-place fixes
(http://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/), but it doesn't include this case.

On 2014/03/03 20:07, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 3/3/14 11:03 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hmm, according to the RFC 7158 text, the month of publication appears
>> to be “March 2013”.
>
> Yes, we noticed that. The RFC Editor is going to publish a corrected
> version.
>
> pr
>




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list