RJ Atkinson wrote: > While the folks in this discussion might > disagree on which drafts fall in that category, everyone believes that at least > some documents ought not be published in an IETF-related archival document series. Mmm...I think the patent thread pointed out that, if we archived all the I-Ds, it'd be a good repository for patent examiners to search. Since some people patent bad ideas, archiving bad ideas would be useful there. -- /===============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |==============================================| |eCal Corp. |All your problems can be solved by not caring!| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | \===============================================================/
- Re: prohibiting R... Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting R... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting R... Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC p... Karl Auerbach
- Re: prohibiting R... Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting R... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting R... Tripp Lilley
- Re: prohibiting R... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting R... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: prohibiting R... RJ Atkinson
- Re: prohibiting R... John Stracke
- Re: prohibiting R... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting R... John Martin
- Re: prohibiting R... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting R... John Martin
- Re: prohibiting R... Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting R... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication... Doug Royer
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Pyda Srisuresh
