ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Broken reference in RFC

2001-07-18 17:50:01
Paul,

I agree with you on the fact that the broken link does not impair the
substance of the document text.

By the way, if you search the keyword "[5" instead of "[5]", you can find
out the broken reference is referred in the document.. once..

I sincerely thank you for your reply.

Jiwoong
KTF


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
To: "Jiwoong Lee" <porce(_at_)ktf(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Broken reference in RFC


At 11:54 AM +0900 7/16/01, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
Next is a small example. One RFC has got an "broken" reference. The
RFC was created in March 1999. And the broken reference is still
"Work in Progress."

The reference you refer to from RFC 2526 is not a normative
reference. RFC 2526 reserves an IPv6 anycast address of 126 based on
a "work in progress", but the title and stable reference for that
work in progress is not needed for the reservation in this RFC.

This is not to say that there are no bugs in RFCs. In that same RFC,
the references section lists a document ([5]) which is never referred
to in the body of the document....

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>