At 10:33 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Fred Baker wrote:
>wrestled to the appearance of support as standards. We're all aware of
>cases where something was poublished as informational, experimental, etc,
>and the next press release announced support of that "standard", and of
>cases where RFCs, like IP on Avian Carriers, started winding up on RFPs
>simply because it was an RFC, and therefore "must" be the standard. This
>is another case of meaning dilution that I worry about.
In absolute terms, these misuses/abuses of RFC reference are quite
bothersome.
However they have been a fact of life pretty much forever. Absent evidence
that they have become a more serious problem than usual, the noise-factor
of the misuses does not seem to cause enough community damage to warrant
changing existing practise.
(I didn't read your note, Fred, as promoting a change, but others have been
in favor of it.)
=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
