"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
[..]
The problem I see with being specific here is that what's crap to me
is not necessarily the same as to you, and we'll just end up arguing
over wether something is crap or not, and that will overshadow the
key aspect of my argument that we should each be allowed to own
opinions as to what is crap and be able to act on those opinions,
including publication of what others might consider to be crap.
You do have avenues for publishing 'crap' outside the RFC series. Put your
content up on a website. Send it to a mailing list. Shout it from the
treetops.
Your argument against improved expectations of standards in the RFC
publication process seems unconvincing. I see Vanity Press written all
over it.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.