*> *> 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 *> >
The RFC Editor thought about this, and decided that we could not decide. ;-) That is, one could argue either way on this. Bob Braden -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
