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

Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)

To: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:56:30 -0800
Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>, <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102081228400.10756-100000@perq.cac.washingt on.edu>
References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010208110722.00a93a00@router.boolean.net>

At 12:30 PM 2/8/01 -0800, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
>> 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.
>
>It would seem reasonable to ask the RFC Editor to have this page be
>redefined as "Proposed but not Obsoleted", which I imagine is the intent.

Or to at least indicate by each obsolete RFC that it is in
fact obsolete.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)
  - From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>

References:
- 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