On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:43, Peter Scott wrote:
> I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from 
> the ones that are post-deadline.  The advantage to having the original 
> deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish 
> cut bait.  If we're going to continue this process now, I move that:
> New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the 
> Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen.  I have no idea how far 
> got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with 
> something that could be making its way down his small intestine.  People 
> should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off 
> some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is 
> enough.

Regardless of the outcome, the initial set of RFCs should be set off 
somewhere.  (And a lot of them aren't listed as frozen, at that!)

> --
> Peter Scott
> Pacific Systems Design Technologies

Bryan C. Warnock

Reply via email to