>>>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:33:35 -0500, "Michael Richardson" <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Michael> So, I noticed that RFC4003 was issued.
Michael> Wow, so we passed the 4000 mark.
Michael> I went to find out what rfc4000 was.
Michael> Aha... not yet issued.
Michael> That's kind of anti-climatic. Oh well.
Michael> Maybe 4096 will be more fun :-)
I think you'd find that it's always reserved for listing purposes and
not for standards themselves. Thus:
# rfcfind -n 3.00
3000 Internet Official Protocol Standards. J. Reynolds, R. Braden, S.
Ginoza, L. Shiota. November 2001. (Format: TXT=115207 bytes)
(Obsoletes RFC2900) (Obsoleted by RFC3300) (Status: STANDARD)
3100 Not Issued.
3200 Not Issued.
3300 Internet Official Protocol Standards. J. Reynolds, R. Braden, S.
Ginoza, A. De La Cruz. November 2002. (Format: TXT=127805 bytes)
(Obsoletes RFC3000) (Obsoleted by RFC3600) (Status: STANDARD)
3400 Not Issued.
3500 Not Issued.
3600 Internet Official Protocol Standards. J. Reynolds, Ed., S.
Ginoza, Ed.. November 2003. (Format: TXT=134338 bytes) (Obsoletes
RFC3300) (Obsoleted by RFC3700) (Also STD0001) (Status: STANDARD)
3700 Internet Official Protocol Standards. J. Reynolds, Ed., S.
Ginoza, Ed.. July 2004. (Format: TXT=148273 bytes) (Obsoletes
RFC3600) (Also STD0001) (Status: STANDARD)
So if you want to look for something new in the 4000+ range, look at
4001 as being special.
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf