Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:29:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
> > cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
> > (myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
>
> Its all flexible. I forgot to put my usual "there will be exceptions"
> clause into the RFC.
If I'm allowed to interpret it to mean "There IS no Rule #6",
then everything's dandy.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
- RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - Seperating the me... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - Seperati... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - Sepe... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - ... John Porter
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Implementation... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Implement... John Porter
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC Imple... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... John Porter
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... John Porter
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC - Prototype RFC I... Mark-Jason Dominus
