Invisible wrote:
> And yet, if you look up the defintion of (say) the Routing Information 
> Protocol, it's defined in RFC 2453.  Which makes it sound like they're
> *requesting* people to comment on a possible standard, rather than 
> *defining* a finished standard.

They were, when it was an RFC. See the line lower down, where it
says "STD: 56"?  That's the standard. :-)

The things start as an RFC. When they're done adjusting to the comments 
received from the request, they get standardized, they get a number, and 
it's still the same RFC. It's just an RFC where nobody had any comments 
about it that weren't addressed. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message