RFCs - insufficiently free?

RFCs - insufficiently free?

A standard is defined by its text. There is no other reference that exists, unless one is ready to accept proprietary implementation as a substitute, Microsoft Windows style...

Thus it becomes highly critical that when someone makes reference to a given standard, everyone knows what _exact_ text it is.

This is also why standards have revision numbers. A given standard with a given revision number is assumed to represent a given, unaltered, text.

Without this protection, the notion of standard is a joke and Microsoft policy of non-conforming implementation becomes morally right.

Restricting the change of a standard is therefore a _major_ protection of freedom (i.e. freedom of creating conforming implementation), exactly like restricting the changes to a constitution text is a major protection of citizen's freedom.

IMHO, a standard is not a text like others. It is a reference text that is trusted by everyone. Probably standard bodies should start issuing official signature for the text of their standard, including certified translations.