> Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP, UDP etc. are "done evolving"). Hence, something would have to take the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately. What I said was that a gap in standards-track RFCs would render the series useless. Were we to be foolish enough to allow a prolonged hiatus in the RFC series, there would be other SDOs more than willing to take over maintenance and extension of the IP suite, of course labeling the resulting standards "Implementation Agreements" or "Recommendations" instead of "RFCs". More importantly, later IETF work (even if called "RFCs") would not be readily viewed as a natural evolution of the original IP standards, and would require us to actively market them. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf