DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=yVAPt9zbETuFOo/AjwUoxu4CK1Ro/ra6yQJre0nnmvtmRhqudOd0KlOozWtw8DndAfmcJbZ7/zk4SLVk3rtrq4tPrpZoXwAzTCodAPCEaR5ln319M8U4f3wYbXC0udFjZhoE9i19ut3br/cjod9lruP0jLURZnIpXQWoytjqTdQ=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060602061004.1159.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@yahoo.com>
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts
To: gopher@complete.org
In-Reply-To: <20060601212829.GA3749@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

Whether appropriate or not, what goes into an RFC is often treated by the vast community of Internet network users as "law".  Gopher has not been addressed often in the RFCs, and what is written about it there, is quoted again, and again, and again.  
   
  Now we have a situation where someone is attempting to "write to stone" so to speak two new RFCs that deal with Gopher.  New RFCs are not as common as one might think.  Therefore when an opportunity arises to give input to the drafting of one, the opportunity shouldn't be ignored.  The point being made by Mr. Newman is the very crux of the problem... and that point is that these documents do NOT change the way we try to do things.  
   
  This is our opportunity to MAKE CHANGES!  In the decade since Gopher was released we have seen what works, what doesn't, and what can be done better.  With so few operating Gopher servers on the Internet, there is little reason why we can't dump the junk and do it right.  
   
  Fundemental changes of this nature have happened before (converting Usenet to TCP/IP is just one example that first comes to mind, although it isn't the only, and certainly not the best example).  Although the future can never be predicted, this time in history may turn out to be the only time that a fundemental change to Gopher of any characteristic or magnitude may be practical.  
   
  Present your ideas, big or minuscule.  Maybe Gopher is perfect, maybe its not, but either way, explain to the authors of these documents WHY you belive this to be true.  
  
Benn Newman <newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
  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-----


---------------------------------
Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls  with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.