> *> 'RFC editor publishes' argument becomes less quibbly and arguably > *> more futureproof.) > > The RFC Editor agrees with the futureproofing, ... > folks have them buried in scripts, and pragmatic continuity is more > valuable to the IETF membership than quibbling. In other words, it's easier to futureproof than to pastproof.
- Re: Acronims' ambiquity Salvador Vidal
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity bindignavile . srinivas
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Dawson, Peter D
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Scott Bradner
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Dawson, Peter D
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Pete Loshin
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Pete Loshin
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity J. Noel Chiappa
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Bob Braden
- RE: Acronims' ambiquity Bob Braden
- Re: Acronims' ambiquity Matt Crawford
- Re: Acronims' ambiquity Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Acronims' ambiquity Joe Touch
- Re: Acronims' ambiquity Brian E Carpenter