Thank you. This does answer the question, and is a good example of how to approach questions in a societal forum like ISDF where even rhetorical questions may hide a cry for information. Once again, thank you. w On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 12:50 -0600 Wawa Ngenge > <ngenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Mark Smith wrote: > >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500 > >> Because that is not how they are updated. > >> The RFC faq would a place to seek your ansers. > > The original question is : "Why do they not operate that way", > > if they are indeed REQUESTS? > Hi. > A better answer would have been "the term 'request for comment' > is historical, dating from a time when the preferred way to make > a formal comment on a document involved writing another > document, which then was numbered into the series". That > mechanism is still available, although usually very slow. But > documents that become RFCs are now first posted as Internet > Drafts (see http://www.ietf.org/ID); comments on those are both > solicited and, usually, handled very quickly. > > Today, the RFC Series, despite retention of the original name > and numbering series, acts as a permanent, archival, repository > of information, decisions taken, and standards published. As > such, documents in the series are subjected to review and > editing processes (which differ somewhat depending on the type > of document and are appropriate for conventional references from > conventional documents. Running conversations, logs of > comments, etc., are not well suited for that archival and > reference role, regardless of their other advantages and > disadvantages. > > regards,