Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undepl

Hi,

On 2011-2-3, at 17:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> While I fully agree with what this document proposes.  This might be an 
> editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be made 
> Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete.
you mean it's missing from Section 2? Good catch. I'll add that in my working 
copy.

>  What is more, referencing all the documents made obsolete normatively is OK? 
>  Here I suggest only RFC 4614 to be mentioned in this way.
I guess they could become informative references, but you could also argue that 
they are required background reading and hence should be normative.

Lars

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf