El Jueves, 5 de Febrero de 2009, Dale Worley escribió: > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:40 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > Unfortunatelly RFC 3966 remains untouchable containing the bug. > > I don't understand why a RFC cannot be *fixed*, I really don't understand > > it. > > Because then there would be several "RFC 3966s", and it would never be > clear which one was meant by the phrase "RFC 3966".
I don't agree on it. There are lots of ways to add a version number to a document or software. For example, when you click on this link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-references you will be redirected to the last version of that draft (sure you know it very well :) ). Exactly the same could be done for RFC's: RFC3396-v2 I can't understand why it would be so traumatic. Note that I just consider bug fixes, never new features and specifications which should be written in a new document replacing the old one (as RFC 3261 bsoletes RFC 2543). If a document called "ABC" is fixed, it remains being "ABC". I can't understand why a fixed version of RFC 3396 can't exist. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
