Subject: RE: Omission from RFC 2371

From: Peter Furniss <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:45:22 -0000

Keith Moore sent :

> My understanding from the RFC Editor is that while RFCs have been
> corrected post-publication, that this has not happened more than
> a week or so after the RFC was published.  

When this happens, is there an announcement that the RFC has been "re-printed" to ensure unofficial mirror sites pick up the correct version ? 

I believe that would have avoided what went wrong in the RFC 1006 case, where at least one official ietf mirror site, which had an rfc mirror set but was not an official "getting rfcs" site, had a corrupt version of RFC 1006 some years after publication. I am not sure of the timescale of the generation of the multiple versions. (The RFC editor organised correcting the propagation when told of the problem)

Peter

--------------------------------------
Peter Furniss Consultants
58 Alexandra Crescent, Bromley, Kent BR1 4EX, UK
Phone & fax : +44 (0)181 313 1833 (or 0181 460 8553 if busy)
Email           : [email-masked]   << note change (9/97)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:14:23 +0000

Peter,

We have (by pure coincidence, because of another case) just
asked the RFC Editor to prepare a short public statement of
the procedure for making typographical post-publication corrections
to RFCs. This will be posted once the IAB and IESG have agreed it,
and it should remove future ambiguity.

Substantive corrections, however trivial, will *always* lead to 
a new RFC number.

   Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:14:23 +0000

Peter,

   Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

---

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:10:40 +0100 (MET)

Actually, there seems to be a glitch in where RFCs are kept while the
author has his "last 48h" chance to check it out and where it is kept
afterwards... Personal and recent experience:

    Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:49:53 -0800 (PST)
    From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
    Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

    You have 48 hours to look over your document
    pathname on venera.isi.edu: in-notes/rfc2505.txt

That's where it still is, but now it has been officially announced.

Guess my surprise when I found that our (unofficial) RFC mirror
already fetched a copy of the (soon-to-be-announced) document I was
proof-reading. There were some changes so hopefully all mirrors use
document's date and not just its existance - we do, but...

It's not the end of the world, but that practice does open up the
risk that various mirrors may get documents with the same name but
with different content. I have suggested to the RFC editor(s) that
they use a different directory but haven't got any response.

	Gunnar Lindberg

>From [email-masked]  Mon Feb 15 14:23:00 1999
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>From: Peter Furniss <[email-masked]>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:45:22 -0000

---

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:10:40 +0100 (MET)

Gunnar Lindberg