It appears that Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> said: >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.
It was my impression that it was an accident of history, the early ones were immutable since there's no way to track down and replace all the mimeographed copies, and that somehow turned into a sacred principle. >True, but that ceased to be a simple property once we allowed multiple >presentation formats. 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. Indeed. If it were up to me, I would say that same intent obviously includes applying errata, but we can leave that for the next round. R's, John -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
