At 02:38 AM 4/9/00 +0100, Martin J.G. Williams wrote: >As far as i'm concerned (IMHO) if the standards bodies were to be driven >by the >vendors, then they would become no more >than sanitised purveyors of de facto standards, and je jure standards would be >relegated to being nothing more than "misty-eyed" memories. Are you saying that IETF specifications are de jure standards? If so, don't tell the State Department, they don't know that :^) IETF Specifications are indeed de facto standards - they are standards in part because the community calls them such, but mostly because the community implements them and uses them. I think what you meant to say is that they would be nothing more than purveyors of the proprietary protocols that vendors chose to make semi-public.
- Re: recommendation against... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publicatio... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Peter Deutsch
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Martin J.G. Williams
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC public... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
