Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > The only possible reason I can see for doing anything to the > status of RFC 1032 is becaue the existence of the RFC is > (wrongly) abused to try to force people into changing their > behaviour with the argument "The IETF says so". Certainly not, just read <http://rfc-ignorant.org> and the listing policy. It's a private service like abuse.net etc. > Those people should stop taking the name of the IETF in vain. "Those people" are about as coherent as this list, and as far as I know they never talk about the "IETF" (excl. me). They discuss RfCs, mainly 2821 and 2142. Replacing 954 by 1032 last year, after 3912 obsoleted 954. > Status UNKNOWN seems like a fine status to keep ACK, bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf