Re: the RFC mess: tentative summary
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:11:30PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > This is not very different forking gcc: in both cases it's generally a
> > bad idea, but the health of a free system depends on it being
> > potentially possible.
>
> Er, hasn't it always been that you never modify an RFC, but just create a new
> one, that subsumes the old? There are countless cases of this already(DNS
> being a prime example).
How exactly do you do that without modifying the old RFC? RFC2616 is
clearly a modification of RFC2068, for example.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: