[rfc-i] rfc-info needs your help!

Mark Allman mallman at icir.org
Thu Apr 1 06:06:34 PST 2004

> 3. Drop the service all together.  Let people use the RFC Editor web 
> and ftp services to retrieve documents.  This seems undesirable as the
> service does get used and there are places where web access is
> limited.  We'd strongly like to preserve email as a method of
> retrieving RFCs.
Note the part where the rfc-ed says "this service does get used".  I
think your opinion has been noted at this point.  Why does everything
have to be a long and drawn out discussion in the IETF?  We don't know
what is important and what is not.  I thought it was pretty clear from
the original message that they wanted to preserve the service and not
incur great cost in doing so (e.g., they didn't even sound like they
were willing to upgrade the hardware - which would be a pretty cheap
undertaking).  Why do folks feel like they need to micro-manage
everything the rfc-ed does?  If the rfc-ed does not tackle this little
problem do you think there will be a noticeable increase in their output
rate?  Why are we engaged in this hairsplitting?  Go review a document
in last call.  It will help much more than continuing this thresd.

(Yeah, I should be sentenced to two last call documents.)


Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20040401/298d63e2/attachment.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list