On 01/09/2025 11:28, Nick wrote:
Hey there!
When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why
they ended up the way they did, it’s not easy. You hardly can find
them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC itself.
Going forward, would it make sense to ma
Hey there!
When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why they
ended up the way they did, it’s not easy. You hardly can find them. This is
because they are often not referenced in the RFC itself.
Going forward, would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference
'[Disc
On 01.09.2025 at 12:28, Nick wrote:
> When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why they
> ended up the way they did, it’s not easy. You hardly can find them. This is
> because they are often not referenced in the RFC itself.
>
> Going forward, would it make sense to mak
Hi
Am 2025-09-01 12:28, schrieb Nick:
When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why
they ended up the way they did, it’s not easy. You hardly can find
them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC itself.
Going forward, would it make sense to make it m
