"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
[..]
> The problem I see with being specific here is that what's crap to me
> is not necessarily the same as to you, and we'll just end up arguing
> over wether something is crap or not, and that will overshadow the
> key aspect of my argument that we should each be allowed to own
> opinions as to what is crap and be able to act on those opinions,
> including publication of what others might consider to be crap.
You do have avenues for publishing 'crap' outside the RFC series. Put your
content up on a website. Send it to a mailing list. Shout it from the
treetops.
Your argument against improved expectations of standards in the RFC
publication process seems unconvincing. I see Vanity Press written all
over it.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.
