Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...)

On Thursday 22 February 2001 16:56, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Here for example was something that was totally missed in the RFCs and 
*should*
> be spec'd out (I believe):

Yes, totally missed....
   http://dev.perl.org/rfc/78.pod

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@capita.com

• Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Adam Turoff
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Adam Turoff
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Nathan Torkington
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Adam Turoff
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Dan Sugalski
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Bryan C . Warnock
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Dan Sugalski
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Simon Cozens
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by David Grove
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Simon Cozens
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Simon Cozens
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Edward Peschko
• Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) by Bryan C . Warnock