On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is the only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
No, I argue as I said, not the words you wish to put in my mouth.
The model for an RFC is an immutable bound volume on a shelf, a model that has served civilization well for centuries. It can be used that way and has but the normal use today is via personal computer. Many people have the entire corpus of RFCs on their laptops and can easily view and search them in their entirety whether or not they have net access.
Your opinion that RFCs are not available on line is, shall we say, "interesting"...
This idea seems sane to me. Given the current policy, the documents are already not usable on the hundreds of millions of net-capable mobile devices; a high quality paper version would avoid making the false promise that RFCs are "available online".
Donald
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote:...>> then it would be to...
>
>
> And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
No. I have no problem with *supplementing* it with such a URL but any author listed on the front page should have an email address, a postal address, and a telephone number listed in the RFC. The model for an RFC is that of a permanent book, not an ephemeral web page. I am opposed to the migration of more of RFC content to links requiring Internet access and perpetual maintenance....
-MartinDonald
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf