On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Ian Cooper wrote:
> 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.
You get into an interesting chicken-and-egg problem though. AFAIK, the
taxonomy document is supposed to document the current practice. So what
do you do if the "current practice" is not documented (i.e. no RFCs or
TRs are available)? :)
> It would make life easier if the
> document above was simply available from a genuine technical report
> archive somewhere.
>
> 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.
OK. Let's call the specs on our site a "IRCache technical report number
CD-V5-01" then. :)
If that is not possible then please define (off the list) what a
technical report is, and we will try to satisfy the requirements.
Personally, I would be reluctant to submit the current specs to any
external entity such as NLANR though.
Thanks,
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST