> ->> Some authors = > No ; > ->> Some authors = > yes; > ->> Libarian = > yes; > ->> Historian => yes; > ->> IETF => no; > ->Interesting set of categories, there. Who's > ->the "IETF?" > I could (&would) say that it is the entity indirectly responsible > for ID/RFC publications with the rights of such publications > residing with the ISOC.... You're missing the point. I gather that you're trying to imply that there's some sort of IETF consensus here, which there clearly is not, and in support of that you're drawing some very weird lines between what you consider to be the "IETF" and what you do not consider to be the "IETF." [BTW, it's "librarian."] Melinda
- Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Eliot Lear
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Keith Moore
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Eliot Lear
- RE: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Dawson, Peter D
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Melinda Shore
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Grenville Armitage
- RE: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Magnus Danielson
- RE: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Dawson, Peter D
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Melinda Shore
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: Proposal to deal with archiving of I-Ds Keith Moore
