On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Tim Bray <tbray(_at_)textuality(_dot_)com>
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,
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".
On Mar 20, 2010 11:18 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Martin Rex <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com> wrote:
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
then it would be to...
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
Ietf mailing list