From:	Dave Storrs	Date:	Mon Aug 21 10:25:12 2000
Subject:	Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:

> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> 
> >   * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that

> I'd been picturing the lifetime of discussion as finite.  Rather than
[...]
> and the RFC represents their best thinking.  This would mean an extra
> 'Frozen' status.
> 
> I'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though.  I want it
> because I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing
> returns, but I know enough about myself to also wonder whether this
> isn't a personal quirk.  Input requested.


	Personally, I tend to agree; long discussions get less useful over
time.  Another reason to want to freeze RFCs is that it is not
realistically possible for them to read the entire discussion history of
each RFC that they might want to comment on...these lists are *way* too
high-traffic.  Marking something as "done" would be a great help.

				Dave