Thank you. This does answer the question, and is a good example of how to
approach questions in a societal forum like ISDF where even rhetorical
questions may hide a cry for information. Once again, thank you.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John C
Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 12:50 -0600 Wawa Ngenge
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 indeed REQUESTS?
A better answer would have been "the term 'request for comment'
is historical, dating from a time when the preferred way to make
a formal comment on a document involved writing another
document, which then was numbered into the series". That
mechanism is still available, although usually very slow. But
documents that become RFCs are now first posted as Internet
Drafts (see http://www.ietf.org/ID); comments on those are both
solicited and, usually, handled very quickly.
Today, the RFC Series, despite retention of the original name
and numbering series, acts as a permanent, archival, repository
of information, decisions taken, and standards published. As
such, documents in the series are subjected to review and
editing processes (which differ somewhat depending on the type
of document and are appropriate for conventional references from
conventional documents. Running conversations, logs of
comments, etc., are not well suited for that archival and
reference role, regardless of their other advantages and