g'day,
Tripp Lilley wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as
"Request
For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to
find
ways to better distinguish between the Standards track and other documents.
Here's a novel idea: we could stop calling them all "RFCs". Call them by
the designators they get once they're blessed (ie: STD, INF, EXP, etc.),
and stop ourselves citing them as RFC [0-9]+.
Change begins at home, as they say...
Yeah, although I'd personally hum for keeping the RFC nomencalture for the
Standard
and Experimental class RFCs, as the name is understand to encompass that
anyways. The
rest we could lump under something like "OFI" (Offered For Information? The
marketing
guys here agree that they wont write code if I don't name products... ;-)
Anyways, we
need to draw a clearer line between the standards which have been wrought by the
IETF, and information which has been captured and tamed, so to speak...
- peterd
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch work email:
pdeutsch(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Technical Leader
Content Services Business Unit private:
pdeutsch(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net
Cisco Systems or :
peterd(_at_)the(_dot_)web
Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------