[ih] Confusion in the RFCs

[Jim Carpenter]

The handbook from January 1978?
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA052594.xhtml

They just messed things up in the handbook. They wrote RFC 542 when
they meant 854. RFC 542 is for FTP, now and then, which is why they
correctly wrote RFC 542 for FTP starting on page 265 (pdf pg. 277).

Accidents happen, especially with lots of numbers floating around.

Jim


On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:54 PM John Day via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> I have the ARPANET Protocol Handbook (1978). It contains the Telnet Spec RFC 542 with NIC 18639. (Aug 1973).
> However, back in the early 90s, I downloaded all of the RFCs at the time from the RFC editor’s website.  In those files, RFC 542 is the 1973 FTP spec also Aug 1973!
>
> I have to note in my download, RFC numbers in that immediate range are a bit spotty and looking them up today for some it says they were never issued.
>
> Any ideas what is going on?  Alex McKenzie pointed out that back then official documents weren’t given RFC numbers, but just NIC numbers because RFCs were requests for *comment.* Official specs were not being circulated for comment. (I always thought that was a little strange.)