Bryan C . Warnock
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:56:59 -0800
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:43, Peter Scott wrote: > I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from > the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original > deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or > cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: > > New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); > > Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's > got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with > something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People > should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on > some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is > enough. Regardless of the outcome, the initial set of RFCs should be set off somewhere. (And a lot of them aren't listed as frozen, at that!) > > > -- > Peter Scott > Pacific Systems Design Technologies -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]