[rfc-i] Retirement of the RFC xx99 series

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Dec 13 10:23:42 PST 2013

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Peter Koch <pk at denic.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
>> Friday, December 13, is a bit early for an April Fools day joke...
> caught in the act.  So, before somebody takes this to Brazil as a serious
> governance issue, let's safely assume there's no RFC number exhaustion issue,
> of course.  I'd be less optimistic w.r.t. the 5 digits, but we've seen Y2K.

Although, I must commend you for not waiting till April.  The time for
this one was *now*  :)

> The part that really drove my curiosity while scripting around 1rfc-index.txt
> was why some of the non issued RFCs had explicitly been marked and others not so
> and whether that could maybe be aligned in any of the two directions.

Good question.  I must confess some curiosity as well, but... look at
the time!  Let me know what you find though, I really am curious.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list