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

Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)

At 12.56 -0800 01-02-08, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
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.

I get your point, and will let the RFC-Editor know, BUT, please read what I write. I think this is the third time I try to make my point:

The authoritative source for this kind of information is the RFC-Index.

    paf


--
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
       PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC