<inline> Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:07 PM Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
> I use ftp all the time to access the RFCs. I use direct web URLs all the > time to access the RFCs. I *occasionally* use rfc-editor.org's web > interface. I agree with Henrik. > I used to use ftp all the time to access the RFCs but then it stopped working about two months ago and messages on this list, from others as well as me, and to the relevant e-mail address have had no effect. So I think that ftp MUST be in the RFP. It is a technology that has proved its worth and even if and when son of http comes along and provides us with a different way of access, ftp will still have a role. Tom Petch > Tony Hansen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > It may be that the level of detail specification should be less than > > what it is now, overall; but with the current specification level I > > felt it is a clear omission to not specify *any* access to the documents > > except through a search facility. I feel that direct ftp/http/rsync > > access is actually more important than the search facility specified > > in the proposed SOW, which is why I commented on this. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
