> Two additional observations: > > (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their > antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications. [elided] > I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN > made more useful, if we treated RFCs as "authoritative paper, > copies available online" rather than "online documents". If > that requires the RFC Editor or IASA to print out all of the > RFCs published in a given month, throw them into an envelope, > and put the envelope into the smail, I imagine we can afford > that.
there is historical precident for this. my question earlier, regarding the whole series, includes early, paper-only RFC's, historic, etc. so the folks thinking that a simple change in the current tools set will make it all good might have overlooked dealing w/ legacy documents. there are also books already published that are RFC compilations. they already have ISSN numbers. > > john -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf