sginoza at amsl.com
Thu Sep 11 17:24:11 PDT 2014
Thank for you raising this issue. After discussing this issue with the RFC Editor team and the IESG, we have corrected the information in our database after.
On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:14 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2014/08/26 17:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4627> states that it was both
>> obsoleted by RFC 7158 and 7159.
>> My understanding is that we don't want anybody to be aware of 7158
>> (<grin>), so shouldn't we update the RFC Index to reflect this?
> I fully agree this should be fixed. I earlier asked the tools folks to fix it, but they said that they didn't want to mess with information from the RFC Editor.
> Regards, Martin.
>> Best regards, Julian
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest