> Two additional observations:
>
> (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
> antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications.
[elided]
> I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN
> made more useful, if we treated RFCs as "authoritative paper,
> copies available online" rather than "online documents". If
> that requires the RFC Editor or IASA to print out all of the
> RFCs published in a given month, throw them into an envelope,
> and put the envelope into the smail, I imagine we can afford
> that.
there is historical precident for this.
my question earlier, regarding the whole series,
includes early, paper-only RFC's, historic, etc.
so the folks thinking that a simple change in the
current tools set will make it all good might have
overlooked dealing w/ legacy documents.
there are also books already published that are RFC
compilations. they already have ISSN numbers.
>
> john
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
