"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote: [..] > The problem I see with being specific here is that what's crap to me > is not necessarily the same as to you, and we'll just end up arguing > over wether something is crap or not, and that will overshadow the > key aspect of my argument that we should each be allowed to own > opinions as to what is crap and be able to act on those opinions, > including publication of what others might consider to be crap. You do have avenues for publishing 'crap' outside the RFC series. Put your content up on a website. Send it to a mailing list. Shout it from the treetops. Your argument against improved expectations of standards in the RFC publication process seems unconvincing. I see Vanity Press written all over it. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au I come from a LAN downunder.