![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Brian; > Facts: > 2) the old URL for the RFC Editor, http://www.isi.edu/rfc-editor/, > directs you to http://www.rfc-editor.org/ > > Can we stop now? Thank you clarifying the position of IETF. However, the RFC editors are still making annoucements like: : RFC 2364: : : Title: PPP Over AAL5 : URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2364.txt :Requests to be :added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should :be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST at ISI.EDU. :Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending :an EMAIL message to rfc-info at ISI.EDU with the message body :help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: : : To: rfc-info at ISI.EDU : Subject: getting rfcs : : help: ways_to_get_rfcs : :Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the :author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager at ISI.EDU. Unless :specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for :unlimited distribution. : :Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to :RFC-EDITOR at ISI.EDU. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC :Authors, for further information. Is it just because of a little bit long transient dealy or laziness? Or, is it intentional? It should be noted that rfc-editor.org already has its own MX. Masataka Ohta
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.