Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:13:41 -0400
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl(_at_)simonstl(_dot_)com>
Message-ID: <200009202210(_dot_)SAA24059(_at_)hesketh(_dot_)net>
| I think the meaning of RFC publication would get diluted
| quickly, but that might be fine as well.
The "meaning" of RFC publication is also something that has been
imported comparatively recently - they used to just be requests
for comments.
| 'Another doc series'? Don't I-Ds already exist as a de facto doc series?
| Only thing is, no one keeps them around.
That's the point ... if they were kept around we would need something
else that is not kept around. I know that I send in I-Ds (especially of
early drafts) precisely on the basis that they will be deleted, and not
kept available to the public forever. If something is going to be
available for people to read (easily) 5 or 10 years from now, then I'm
simply not going to publish it until after it has been reviewed, and there's
been a reasonable chance for my more stupid ideas to be quietly squashed.
| That's not my issue - I just need to be able to reference materials in all
| phases of development, without those references expiring constantly.
How do you reference the conversations that take place in the IETF WG
meetings? That is also part of the development process. I-D's ought to
be being treated just like those conversations...
kre