Yaakov,
It might be me, but it seems (to me) that - if you think through
what you've said - it is not consistent. Maybe it's simply an issue of
relative time scales.
Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to occur
going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP, UDP etc. are
"done evolving"). Hence, something would have to take the place of the
IETF and the RFC series practically immediately.
Don't you agree?
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:41 AM
--> To: Keith Moore; Joe Touch
--> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org;
--> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
--> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; independent@ietf.org
--> Subject: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
-->
-->
--> > That vast number does not establish the credibility of
--> the series; the
-->
--> > original ones do.
-->
--> IP, TCP, UDP, etc would not cease to be used
--> if either the IETF or the RFC editor disappeared,
--> or even if their original RFCs forgotten.
-->
--> The main importance of the RFC series is the
--> demonstration of continuity
--> from the early roots and the present IETF work.
-->
--> The "credibility" of the original standards (not the "series") is
--> important,
--> but were there a gap between then and now,
--> the series would be rendered useless.
-->
--> Y(J)S
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> INDEPENDENT mailing list
--> INDEPENDENT@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
