Subject: Re: the old "separate document series" argument

From: Charles Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:30:17 -0700 (PDT)

Hello Keith,

>> We should _require_ that RFCs be cited as Informational RFCs,
>> Proposed Standard RFCs, Experimental RFCs, Draft Standard RFCs,
>> or Standard RFCs (as appropriate). 
> 
> doesn't seem to work...we have a difficult enough time educating
> the press about less sutble things.

Maybe there isn't one single thing that will "work".

But if we wait around until we find the magic bullet that will
solve all our problems with no pain, we may never accomplish
the goal.

I suggest taking small, easy steps that make sense, and then
continuing to look for the next small, easy step.

> the only effective way to require that they be cited differently 
> is to change their filenames and designations.

Internet Drafts and RFCs are often cited already by title, not
by filename.  Nevertheless, I agree that changing filenames
may be worth considering.

Regards,
Charlie P.

=============================================================

I am changing my affiliation.  My new e-mail address will be:
		Charles E. Perkins <[email-masked]>
I am also reachable at <[email-masked]>

=============================================================

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:31:43 -0400

> continuing to look for the next small, easy step.

the question is whether those steps actually accomplish anything
other than increasing the level of entropy.

just because there are problems with our current approach,
it does not follow that a different approach would result
in fewer problems.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:31:43 -0400

Keith

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:54:37 -0700

>it does not follow that a different approach would result

There can be no disagreement here.  If we don't believe a change is 
an improvement, it would be really dumb to make the change.

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:54:37 -0700