Read RFC 2026.
At 10:03 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
At 00:37 09/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC? Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience and questions received.
These are usually found in the form of working group archives and subsequent RFCs that update or obsolete the older ones, especially in the case of standards track documents. The RFC Editor also keeps a log of notes on RFCs when asked to.
It's not obvious, at least to me, why a second mechanism is required if th one that is there works... .
Let say that an RFC is an IETF deliverable. After-delivery support/maintenance is not a requirment for the delivery to exist but an usual user expectation. An RFC is a project imposed to the world before it is validated. A market standard is the desciption of what works and is adopted. We might find this way a fortunate compromise?
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through ietf_censored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which is a sublist of ietf@xxxxxxxxx Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator (ietf_admin@xxxxxxxx).