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

Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3 .)

To: Ron Ramsay <Ron.Ramsay@OpenDirectory.com.au>
Subject: Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3 .)
From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:00:06 -0500
Cc: "'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'" <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message of Thu, 05 Aug 1999 10:40:00 +1000." <D1A949D4508DD1119C8100400533BEDC10E09C@DSG1>
Resent-date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"UuHV8C.A.kR.kIOq3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

> Could an I-D be created to track all changes to RFC 2251?

Several of the documents in the 2251-2256 will need to be updated, however 
we don't yet have all the updated text written or contributions received.
As we get closer to how the updated documents will look, I'll send out new I-Ds 
for the docs that I edit, and Tim and others will likewise for theirs.

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.

References:
- RE: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3 .)
  - From: Ron Ramsay <Ron.Ramsay@OpenDirectory.com.au>

Prev by Date: More type problems and return values in the C API
Next by Date: id-at-attributeCertificateRevocationList
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread