It probably should, although the title is fairly clear. 1888 now shows as Historic in the index. But its true update is presumably going to be draft-gray-rfc1888bis
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may seem a little petty, but based on the abstract and title of this one, shouldn't the line
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
be changed from none to 1888?
Eric
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RFC 4048 on RFC 1888 Is Obsolete Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:20:00 -0700 From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce@ietf.org CC: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4048
Title: RFC 1888 Is Obsolete Authors: B. Carpenter Status: Informational Date: April 2005 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pages: 4 Characters: 7394 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
I-D Tag: draft-carpenter-obsolete-1888-01.txt
URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4048.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
