On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote: > readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request > For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find > ways to better distinguish between the Standards track and other documents. Here's a novel idea: we could stop calling them all "RFCs". Call them by the designators they get once they're blessed (ie: STD, INF, EXP, etc.), and stop ourselves citing them as RFC [0-9]+. Change begins at home, as they say... -- Tripp Lilley * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://stargate.sg505.net/~tlilley/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I only counted on today's sunlight and snow, on the rain that dampened my face." - L.E. Modesitt, Jr., Adiamante
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Karl Auerbach
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Tripp Lilley
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication RJ Atkinson
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication John Stracke
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication John Martin
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication John Martin
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Valdis . Kletnieks