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

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Mar 9 21:44:01 PDT 2014

Hi SM,

On 2014/03/09 14:49, SM wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> At 21:09 04-03-2014, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:01:05 +0900
>> 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.
> There was a discussion nearly a year ago about not changing a RFC once
> it has been published.

I very much agree with this *in principle*.

> In deciding whether to depart from the basic
> idea it would have to determined whether RFCs form an archival series.

Of course RFCs form an archival series. But at least in my 
understanding, the defining aspect of an archival series isn't that 
nothing, not even the most silly and obvious mistake, can be fixed even 
a second after publication. The defining aspect of an archival series is 
that it stays stable in the long term (where in the specific case at 
hand, long term can be defined as short as "longer than a day").

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list