<flame>
HAVING THE IETF CONTINUE TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER IS NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE INTERNET.
</flame>
OK, finished shouting. Eric and Bob: the NEWTRK list is waiting for your contribution on the principle involved, and your internet-draft suggesting the change to RFC 2026 to get rules aligned with reality.
Great. This is a good statement and the first step ahead!
While updating RFC 2026, better also to make the second step and say that "having the IETF continue to do one thing according to the RFCs and the rest of the world doing something else is not a good thing either for the Internet (what ever the "Internet" may then mean since IETF says it is the adherence to its Internet documents).
Then may be someone will consider publishing the "Internet Book" were the consequences of the valid standards and RFC would be maintained in an orderly maner and translated into the various working languages of the world. This would solve the obsolesence issue: if an RFC is not quoted in the Internet Book and no one protests for one year or more, it becomes historic.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf