John said...
Well, you know, the "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later" really are
requesting comments.
Yes, well, we all know that "RFC" has lost any real sense of its
expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of
the world, for whom "RFC" means "Internet standard".
Dave Cridland sid...
It's also like the (much more versatile) labelling proposal Keith Moore made
here.
Perhaps, but Keith's labelling proposal is still not sufficient if we
CALL them "RFC"s. The *only* way to make people not look at them as
"already standard" is by NOT giving them RFC numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that's what we should do. But I *am* sure it's the
only way to do it.
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf