>> 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. :-)

And yet, they're always referred to by the RFC number. (I guess because 
it came first...)

> 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. :-)

Heh. I wonder if there are any RFCs where people said "hell, this is too 
stupid, let's forget the whole thing"?

Worryingly, RFC 2549 does *not* fall into this category...!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message