|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |