Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:28:29 -0500
From: Benn Newman <newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts
Message-ID: <20060601212829.GA3749@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
References: <20060518150511.18149.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060518150511.18149.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:05:11AM -0700, JumpJet Mailbox wrote:
> Persons seriously interested in giving input about how Gopher will be officially codified in the RFCs should examine and respond to the authors of documents:
>    
>   draft-hoffman-gopher-uri-03.txt
>   draft-murali-url-gopher.txt
>    
>   Both of these documents are available on JumpJet ( gopher://home.jumpjet.info/11\Begin_Here\References ).  These RFCs will be as important to the Gopher community as RFC1436, and it is imperative that they be addressed while still in final draft stage.  
Those are *old*. What exactly do they change about the way we (try) to do things? I noticed some Gopher+ stuff but nothing else of much interest.
-- 
Benn Newman | newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org | gopher://igneous-rock.homeunix.net
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkR/W/0ACgkQFE65lPR8xrG++wCfaGq/L8+X+q8D0wVseh3Peudl
YCoAnjC/vRr0iuQhu3efoI9Qo+uPPu2c
=u5ya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----