Paul,
I agree with you on the fact that the broken link does not impair the
substance of the document text.
By the way, if you search the keyword "[5" instead of "[5]", you can find
out the broken reference is referred in the document.. once..
I sincerely thank you for your reply.
Jiwoong
KTF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jiwoong Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Broken reference in RFC
> At 11:54 AM +0900 7/16/01, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
> >Next is a small example. One RFC has got an "broken" reference. The
> >RFC was created in March 1999. And the broken reference is still
> >"Work in Progress."
>
> The reference you refer to from RFC 2526 is not a normative
> reference. RFC 2526 reserves an IPv6 anycast address of 126 based on
> a "work in progress", but the title and stable reference for that
> work in progress is not needed for the reservation in this RFC.
>
> This is not to say that there are no bugs in RFCs. In that same RFC,
> the references section lists a document ([5]) which is never referred
> to in the body of the document....
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>
>
