Hi Patrick; Thanks; On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 13:57 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 12:39 -0400, William Case wrote: > > Hi; > > > > Just a quick process question. I have been digging into various RFCs > > (RFC1918, RFC1700, RF3513 etc.) issued by committees of the IETF. They > > are very good and surprisingly clear explanations of how network > > addressing is to be used. > > > > My question is this: These memos are entitled Requests for Comments and > > each have received several detailed and learned comments, yet, the RFC > > seems to become adopted as written with the comments only attached but > > not adopted. I am I misreading the actual RFC process? > > No, there's a process of creating and approving draft versions > (described in an RFC of course :-) before the RFC Editor decides to > release the definitive version, but even this is still called an RFC, > not a Standards Document or anything fancy, although some key RFCs are > described as being "Standards Track". Comments to an RFC may eventually > serve to generate a new RFC which supersedes it, e.g. RFC2822 obsoletes > RFC822. > > See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html > > poc I thought there would have to some kind of institutional illogic involved. Glade I asked. -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
