*>
*> 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
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
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 Subject: RFC 4048 on RFC 1888 Is Obsolete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
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Subject: RFC 4048 on RFC 1888 Is Obsolete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
T
