On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:43, Peter Scott wrote:
> I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from
> the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original
> deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish
or
> cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that:
>
> New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the
difference);
>
> Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far
Larry's
> got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with
> something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People
> should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off
on
> some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is
> enough.
Regardless of the outcome, the initial set of RFCs should be set off
somewhere. (And a lot of them aren't listed as frozen, at that!)
>
>
> --
> Peter Scott
> Pacific Systems Design Technologies
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
