> Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been > open to all wishing it. uh, no. this is a common myth, but it's not true, and hasn't been true for many years. I hope (and believe) that the *potential* for publication is open to all, and that the process isn't biased according to who is asking, but my understanding is that a great many drafts which are submitted for publication are rejected. Like any other publication series which has value as a compilation, the RFC series requires editorial oversight and filtering. For those that want an unfiltered publication series, there's always the web. Or Usenet. Keith
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not... Scott Brim
- Re: recommendation against publicatio... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against public... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Derrell D. Piper
- Re: recommendation against public... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against public... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-ce... Dave Crocker
- prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Martin J.G. Williams
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
