[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)

To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:09:38 -0800
Cc: Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>, ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20010208104443.02cca420@router.boolean.net>
References: <p05100803b6a89105ffa0@[192.168.1.22]> <3A82DEE8.44C0A0E5@sun.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010208092020.02c11e70@router.boolean.net> <3A82DEE8.44C0A0E5@sun.com>

At 10:50 AM 2/8/01 -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>At 07:09 PM 2/8/01 +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> One should though have had a header line in 2255 which says "obsoletes:
>> 1959". Today, it says "replaces 1959" in the abstract.
>
>I'm more concerned that
>  RFC 1959 doesn't have a header "Obsoleted by: RFC 2255"
>and
>  RFC 1960 doesn't have a header "Obsoleted by: RFC 2254".
>
>Can these changes be made?

Obviously not.  Guess one just has to live with a bit of
confusion caused by having both listed on http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>

References:
- Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>
- RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
Next by Date: Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread