John said... > Well, you know, the "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later" really are > requesting comments. Yes, well, we all know that "RFC" has lost any real sense of its expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of the world, for whom "RFC" means "Internet standard". Dave Cridland sid... > It's also like the (much more versatile) labelling proposal Keith Moore made > here. Perhaps, but Keith's labelling proposal is still not sufficient if we CALL them "RFC"s. The *only* way to make people not look at them as "already standard" is by NOT giving them RFC numbers. Now, I'm not sure that's what we should do. But I *am* sure it's the only way to do it. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf