Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?

I expect that we might want to change that to be RFC822bisASCII, when we
know what the new RFC number is.  Question: Do we or do we not want to
cite a 1968 obsolete SI X3.4 standard in a 1991 RFC?

Best...\Stef

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: text --> IA5 ?, (continued) Re: text --> IA5 ?, Einar Stefferud Re: text --> IA5 ?, Dave Crocker Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: text --> IA5 ?, John Noerenberg Re: text --> IA5 ?, Einar Stefferud Re: text --> IA5 ?, John C Klensin SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Einar Stefferud Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, John C Klensin Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Einar Stefferud Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Einar Stefferud <= Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, John C Klensin Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Greg Vaudreuil Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Dave Crocker Re: text --> IA5 ?, Risto Kankkunen Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein

Previous by Date:	Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein
Next by Date:	Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, jwn2
Previous by Thread:	Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, Nathaniel Borenstein
Next by Thread:	Re: SIGH! Re: text --> IA5 ?, John C Klensin
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]