>> Er, you better review what the whole purpose of a standard is, in 
>> the first place. One of the goals of a standard is to remain 
>> standard, and to be standard. Hence it's name, standard.

> I know, but does that really apply to FTS-1? Does it really deserve to 
> be called a standard then? Isn't FTS-1 rather "description of current 
> practice"? And if the current practice has changed, why not change 
> FTS-1?

ac> Are you volunteering?

If he isn't, I already have.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---