Typographical error in RFC 107
A one-line 1971 correction: a command on page 7 of RFC 107 should be STR, not RTS.
Melvin, J.T., "Typographical error in RFC 107", RFC 124, DOI 10.17487/RFC0124, April 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc124>.
@misc{rfc124,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 124,
howpublished = {RFC 124},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0124},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc124},
author = {J.T. Melvin},
title = {{Typographical error in RFC 107}},
pagetotal = 1,
year = 1971,
month = apr,
} RFC text
NETWORK WORKING GROUP J. Melvin
Request for Comments #124 NIC
NIC #5840 19 April 1971
Typographical Error in RFC 107
Catagories: C
RFCs Obsoleted: none
RFCs Updated: 106
On page 7 of RFC 107, the RTS (1.) should be an STR.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the ]
[ direction of Alex McKenzie. 12/96 ]
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Correction
RFC 124, by J. Melvin of the NIC, is dated 19 April 1971. Its whole content is one sentence: on page 7 of RFC 107, the RTS (1.) should be an STR.
The header lists the category as C and says no RFCs are obsoleted. The memo does not explain what RTS or STR mean.
A teacher says: on page 7, you wrote one word wrong, please swap it for this word.
§2A Tiny Erratum as an RFC
In 1971 even a single-line correction was issued as its own numbered RFC with its own NIC number (5840). The header text also names RFC 106 as the RFC updated, while the title and the unit metadata point to RFC 107; the correction itself concerns page 7 of RFC 107.
Even a very small fix got its own numbered note, so everyone would see it.
§3What to Take Away
The change is purely a typo fix. It does not alter the design, and the text gives no further context. Anyone implementing the protocol from RFC 107 should read the RTS on page 7 as STR.
Read the old page with the new word, and everything else stays the same.