g'day,
Tripp Lilley wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
>
> > readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
> > For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
> > ways to better distinguish between the Standards track and other documents.
>
> Here's a novel idea: we could stop calling them all "RFCs". Call them by
> the designators they get once they're blessed (ie: STD, INF, EXP, etc.),
> and stop ourselves citing them as RFC [0-9]+.
>
> Change begins at home, as they say...
Yeah, although I'd personally hum for keeping the RFC nomencalture for the Standard
and Experimental class RFCs, as the name is understand to encompass that anyways. The
rest we could lump under something like "OFI" (Offered For Information? The marketing
guys here agree that they wont write code if I don't name products... ;-) Anyways, we
need to draw a clearer line between the standards which have been wrought by the
IETF, and information which has been captured and tamed, so to speak...
- peterd
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch work email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Leader
Content Services Business Unit private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco Systems or : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
