On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:01:38 PDT, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > At 10:33 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Fred Baker wrote: > >cases where RFCs, like IP on Avian Carriers, started winding up on RFPs > >simply because it was an RFC, and therefore "must" be the standard. This > >is another case of meaning dilution that I worry about. > > In absolute terms, these misuses/abuses of RFC reference are quite > bothersome. The important question is "Does RFC2549 support prove to be self-limiting in the marketplace". I'm afraid I know the answer, and don't like it... ;( Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
- Re: prohibiting R... Tripp Lilley
- Re: prohibiting R... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting R... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: prohibiting R... RJ Atkinson
- Re: prohibiting R... John Stracke
- Re: prohibiting R... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting R... John Martin
- Re: prohibiting R... Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting R... John Martin
- Re: prohibiting R... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendatio... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication... Doug Royer
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication of d... Vernon Schryver