Is this a relay of a question from the ISDF list to the IETF list? I don't
seem to have the context of the conversation.
I gather that the question has something to do with the management of RFCs.
It would be good to read the discussion at http://www.rfc-editor.org/ for
what the RFC Editor thinks the RFC Series is.
As to the name, you need to understand both the origins and the history of
the series: the series was originally an archive of notes among friends,
and (per Steve Crocker, the guy who named them) was called "Request for
Comments" as much as anything to downplay the concept of "we are now
publishing Something Immutable and Really Important". That was in 1969. By
the time I became associated with the IETF in 1989, there was a running
joke that the letters really stood for "Requirements for Compliance", and
today we often have a hard time convincing the ignorant that a published
RFC - even when it opens with the words "this is not a standard" or "this
is a bad idea that we are archiving so we don't forget why it is a bad
idea" - is in fact not a standard. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
describes the current use of the RFC series, in terms of standards track
specifications (about 1/3 of the RFCs), history, experiments, white papers
on networking, poetry, and April Fool's jokes.
At 10:50 AM 1/8/2004, Wawa Ngenge wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
> Because that is not how they are updated.
> The RFC faq would a place to seek your ansers.
The original question is : "Why do they not operate that way", if they are
> Isdf mailing list
Wawa Ngenge (Ph.D.)
Internet Society Trustee Emeritus
This message was passed through ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator