Re: An Internet Draft as reference material

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RJ Atkinson w
rites:
>At 15:44 22/09/00, Pete Loshin wrote:
>
>>IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a
>>"work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background
>>information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months
>>of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful.
>
>Do such RFCs actually exist ?   
>Do you have a specific example ?  I don't know of any.

grep is your friend.  (Most, but not all, of these are actual 
references in the References section.)

RFC 1738
1753
1815
1889
1915
1943
1949
1999
2074
2084
2088
2150
2183
2189
2257
2301
2306
2360
2376
2411
2412
2416
2553
2585
2688
2731
2861
2882


                --Steve Bellovin