Subject: Re: [RFC2445] Discrepancy in 4.3.6 Duration (original and May 10th draft)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:42:47 -0400

John wrote on 05/17/2001 10:25:15 AM:
> I believe the current ABNF permits it, actually, because:
> 
>      dur-time   = "T" (dur-hour / dur-minute / dur-second)
> 
> ...and 10M matches dur-minute.

You are correct.  The online copy at RFC-Editor.org matches it.  My copy 
did not and it supposedly came from the IETF archives when we got our #. 
My printed copy from Frank also has that so I think the IBM archived copp 
is not the final one.  Hmm, sorry about that.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: "Shannon J. Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:29:26 -0500

This points out something I have suspected from previous discussions here
(where people cited different paginations, different ABNF texts etc), we
(all members of the working group) should be VERY clear in our
correspondences the VERSION of the documentation(s) that we are working
from.

If we make this a practice it should minimize future problems like this -
and help bring out respective archives up to date if they have fallen
behind - there are enough topics for discussion without miscommunications
needing to be one.

(for the RFC's this means RFC# + submission date, for the proposals like CAP
this would be the CAP version #, as well as perhaps the expiry date)

Shannon
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of [email-masked]
  Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 10:43 AM
  To: John Stracke
  Cc: [email-masked]; Rk-Devel; coral
  Subject: Re: [RFC2445] Discrepancy in 4.3.6 Duration (original and May
10th draft)

  You are correct.  The online copy at RFC-Editor.org matches it.  My copy
did not and it supposedly came from the IETF archives when we got our #.  My
printed copy from Frank also has that so I think the IBM archived copp is
not the final one.  Hmm, sorry about that.

  Bruce

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:35:15 -0400

"Shannon J. Clark" wrote:

> This points out something I have suspected from previous
> discussions here (where people cited different paginations,
> different ABNF texts etc), we (all members of the working
> group) should be VERY clear in our correspondences the VERSION
> of the documentation(s) that we are working from.

There is only supposed to be one version of an RFC.  An oddity
like this is an exception, not the norm.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Any sufficiently rigged demo is              |
[email-masked]|indistinguishable from advanced technology.  |
\==============================================================/

---

From: "Shannon J. Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:28:14 -0500

How then are corrections and updates to the RFC's done? In my own files I
have TWO versions of RFC2445, one dated November 1998, and a more recently
submitted one that has some changes/corrections dated May 2001.

I agree that this should be the exception - but it is a sticky issue with
the whole process - as the drafts go through their changes the underlying
document WILL change. Since individuals and companies will copy the files,
store them offline and/or mirror copies online there will be different
versions of what could appear to be the same draft... not a happy state of
affairs perhaps, but it has and will happen.

Shannon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Stracke
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RFC2445] Discrepancy in 4.3.6 Duration (original and May
10th draft)

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:36:52 -0400

"Shannon J. Clark" wrote:

> How then are corrections and updates to the RFC's done?

Please read RFC-2026.

> In my own files I

That second one is not an RFC; it's Eric's proposed updated version of 2445.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Vote for Ron, and nobody gets hurt! --actual |
[email-masked]|campaign poster from Chicago                 |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Alan Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:56:19 -0400

Once an RFC is published, it can't be updated in any way-
not even for an error or typo:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html

--Alan