![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
--On Wednesday, 12 December, 2007 17:05 -0800 Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com> wrote: > I would prefer to have a reference to 2822upd, but I suspect > this decision dates back to when it wasn't clear that 2822bis > was going to get updated more or less at the same time. This is, of course, the sort of thing that can be changed in an RFC Editor note if, in fact, 2822 is ready and more or less concurrent. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.