--On Thursday, June 19, 2025 08:44 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19-Jun-25 05:37, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> I want to support John Klensin here. I have always thought that the
>> ~immutability~ of RFCs was one of their greatest strengths.
>
> True, but that ceased to be a simple property once we allowed
> multiple
> presentation formats.
You might, more accurately, have said "... allowed multiple
presentation formats and decided to make the claim that they were all
equal". That may have been, and be, an impossibility, but we
continue to act on that decision and everything that accompanies it.
> From then on, the property split into two:
> immutability of presentation (gone) and immutability of intent
> (hopefully
> still applicable). What we've been arguing about is how to precisely
> define immutability of intent.
Right.
> A friendly amendment to:
>
>>> "Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic
>>> changes that do not affect the syntax for protocols
>>> themselves may be changed."
>
> is:
>
> "Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic
> or
> superficial changes that do not affect the syntax for
> protocols
> themselves may be made."
I think that is getting much closer to reality, probably even close
enough.
> ("Superficial" is often used as a negative term but it is in fact
> exactly what I mean: changes on the visible surface.)
Agreed.
john
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
