Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?) / OSI Transition Message-ID: <6431@ficc.uu.net> Date: 5 Oct 89 17:25:36 GMT References: <[A.ISI.EDU]28-Sep-89.07:35:08.CERF> <8910022323.AA11747@venera.isi.edu> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 In article <8910022323.AA11747@venera.isi.edu>, pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris) writes: > I think that the second freedom [to have RFCs online for processing] > is desirable but has to strike a balance against progress. > I suggest the following sequence: > 1 Text RFCs. > 2 Text and PS RFCs which are less accessible. > n Copyrighted RFCs with ISO/CCITT numbers which must be purchased. This is "progress", Mr. Mockapetris? Looks like a giant step backwards to me. Why on earth is this in any way a desirable step? -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' ``I feel that any [environment] with users in it is "adverse".'' 'U` -- Eric Peterson