Re: I-D ACTION:draft-sanz-rfc1032-historic-00.txt

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> The only possible reason I can see for doing anything to the
> status of RFC 1032 is becaue the existence of the RFC is
> (wrongly) abused to try to force people into changing their
> behaviour with the argument "The IETF says so".

Certainly not, just read <http://rfc-ignorant.org> and the
listing policy.  It's a private service like abuse.net etc.

> Those people should stop taking the name of the IETF in vain.

"Those people" are about as coherent as this list, and as
far as I know they never talk about the "IETF" (excl. me).

They discuss RfCs, mainly 2821 and 2142.  Replacing 954 by
1032 last year, after 3912 obsoleted 954.

> Status UNKNOWN seems like a fine status to keep

                       ACK, bye, Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf