Hi Charles, On a procedural point: On 2008-03-19 04:13, Charles Lindsey wrote: > But RFC2045 is a Draft Standard, and > it is entirely outside the remit of the EAI WG to attempt to change what is > in a Draft Standard. This draft does lack a couple of headers: Updates: 2045 (if approved) Intended status: Experimental and equivalent text in its Abstract. I'd be very surprised if EAI didn't need to update a whole bunch of earlier standards. The idea of Experimental RFCs updating standards-track RFCs is a tricky one though. It can't reasonably be avoided in some cases, but it seems like something that should be very carefully considered by the IESG, to check operational compatibility. Regards Brian Carpenter University of Auckland _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf