26.07.2011 1:05, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Ronald Bonica<[email protected]>
> While it clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it
> does not set a precedent for any future case.
In other words, this document is doing something with "HISTORIC" that isn't the
normal, this is a special case. I think this is a bad idea.
+1. Should Historic status definition be clarified, it should be done
in a separate document, or in the revision of RFC 2026. See my previous
message.
Mykyta
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
