On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:12:46 -0600 (MDT), Alex Rousskov wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Gary Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't a technical report that is archived
>> properly suitable as a RFC reference? If so, then Alex all that is
>> needed would be to create a TR out of your current spec and place it
>> in one of your archives at NLANR.
>
>This was long time ago, and the taxonomy draft has a reference to our
>specs at http://squid.nlanr.net/CacheDigest/cache-digest-v5.txt.
Right, though I think what Gary is saying is that it's problematic to
get to Informational RFC ourselves if we cite things that aren't
RFCs/technical reports, etc. It would make life easier if the
document above was simply available from a genuine technical report
archive somewhere.
>I just was under (perhaps false) impression that the editor finds it
>annoying that no Cache Digest RFC has been submitted to IETF. So I
>tried to explain the reasons why that was not done.
The comment pre-dates me. The source of annoyance is not with the
authors of that document however. Publishing as a technical report
within NLANR (or wherever) is the "next" best thing to it being an
RFC.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST