On Fri May 6 22:37:20 2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
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".
Actually, for most of the world, it means Rugby Football Club. But
yes, for the majority of folk who know about protocol specs, then RFC
means 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.
Right, which is why both Scott and Keith's proposals involve I-Ds,
not RFCs.
Now, I'm not sure that's what we should do. But I *am* sure it's
the
only way to do it.
I think it represents the sanest approach proposed so far.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf