At 10:33 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Fred Baker wrote:
wrestled to the appearance of support as standards. We're all aware of
cases where something was poublished as informational, experimental, etc,
and the next press release announced support of that "standard", and of
cases where RFCs, like IP on Avian Carriers, started winding up on RFPs
simply because it was an RFC, and therefore "must" be the standard. This
is another case of meaning dilution that I worry about.
In absolute terms, these misuses/abuses of RFC reference are quite
bothersome.
However they have been a fact of life pretty much forever. Absent evidence
that they have become a more serious problem than usual, the noise-factor
of the misuses does not seem to cause enough community damage to warrant
changing existing practise.
(I didn't read your note, Fred, as promoting a change, but others have been
in favor of it.)
=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA