Hi,
Ok, many of us have set up rules to move the WG emails to the appropriate
folders, so I am wondering how these email subject lines do not show the WG
name...
Request All to include a WG name in the subject line []s like [manet].
(which includes this email too!!)
I would think IETF moderator
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:19:00 -0400 John C Klensin wrote:
|
|
| --On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >...
| > Or consider the RFC that describes Classical IP and ARP over
| > Automatic Teller Machines...
|
| What did you say an ARP was? S
--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Or consider the RFC that describes Classical IP and ARP over
> Automatic Teller Machines...
What did you say an ARP was? Some sort of fuzzy alien, perhaps?
A digestive sound made after excessive SIPPI
> Agreed. Spelling things out becomes even more important as
> documents age. Consider, for example, "IMP" in some of the
> older RFCs. I suspect many IETF participants have never seen
> or used one, yet this was probably considered "well known" when
> those RFCs were written.
Or consider the R
--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 12:13 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: Names of standards-track RFCs
> ...
>> Now a different viewpoint. When lo
Hi -
> From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Names of standards-track RFCs
...
> Now a different viewpoint. When looking at drafts as they go by on
> id-announce, nothing gets me more annoyed than reading the tit
At 12:56 PM 7/14/2004, John Stracke wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
The expansion of it
as an abbreviation doesn't provide significant information and
may, indeed, add to confusion.
It also makes it harder to search rfc-index.txt, since names can span line
boundaries and abbrevations can't.
Now, as
At 12:08 PM -0400 7/14/04, John C Klensin wrote:
Again, am I the only one who is bothered by this?
No, not all. The RFC Editor is about to release revisions to the
S/MIME specs where "MIME" is spelled out, for example.
And, if not,
can we ask the IESG to think a bit about this matter going
forw
John C Klensin wrote:
The expansion of it
as an abbreviation doesn't provide significant information and
may, indeed, add to confusion.
It also makes it harder to search rfc-index.txt, since names can span
line boundaries and abbrevations can't.
Now, as far as I have been able to tell, everyon
Hi.
A question as to whether I'm the only one who is bothered by a
trend and, if not, if it is time for the community to give the
IESG and the RFC Editor some advice.
I note that my concern is _only_ about standards-track
documents: they are widely referenced and cited by title as well
as number,
10 matches
Mail list logo