gt; Yes there are other links to it on other pages which just consumes more of my
>> time to find.
>>
>> I am thinking that the metadata may be wrong and there will be other
>> problems but as yet have no evidence thereof.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
&g
;
>Les
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of tom petch
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:02 AM
> > To: lsr-cha...@ietf.org
> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] RFC8665
> >
> > I look in vain in the datatrac
gt; Yes there are other links to it on other pages which just consumes more of my
>> time to find.
>>
>> I am thinking that the metadata may be wrong and there will be other
>> problems but as yet have no evidence thereof.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>&
ginal Message-----
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of tom petch
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:02 AM
> > To: lsr-cha...@ietf.org
> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] RFC8665
> >
> > I look in vain in the datatracker for RFC8665.
> >
> > Do
3 4:02 AM
> To: lsr-cha...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] RFC8665
>
> I look in vain in the datatracker for RFC8665.
>
> Document search finds it, the data tracker does not list it.
>
> I realise that it is not a product of the lsr WG but then neither a
To: lsr-cha...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] RFC8665
>
> I look in vain in the datatracker for RFC8665.
>
> Document search finds it, the data tracker does not list it.
>
> I realise that it is not a product of the lsr WG but then neither are RFC9129
>
I look in vain in the datatracker for RFC8665.
Document search finds it, the data tracker does not list it.
I realise that it is not a product of the lsr WG but then neither are RFC9129
or RFC8920 AFAICTand they are listed.
Odd; well, irritating to be precise.
Tom Petch
