[ih] Confusion in the RFCs

[John Day]

Doubtful.  Unless they had a time machine. RFC 854 is dated May 1983.
As I pointed out (or should have) the NIC number is the same as on the official Aug 1973 version.

I will contact the RFC-editor.

Take care,
John

> On Sep 5, 2025, at 05:14, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.)