Subject: [Fwd: RFC 4048 on RFC 1888 Is Obsolete]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:03:57 +0200

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RFC 4048 on RFC 1888 Is Obsolete
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:20:00 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

         RFC 4048

         Title:      RFC 1888 Is Obsolete
         Authors:    B. Carpenter
         Status:     Informational
         Date:       April 2005
         Mailbox:    [email-masked]
         Pages:      4
         Characters: 7394
         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None

         I-D Tag:    draft-carpenter-obsolete-1888-01.txt

         URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4048.txt

This document recommends that RFC 1888, on Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) Network Service Access Points (NSAPs) and IPv6,
be reclassified as Historic, as most of it has no further value,
apart from one section, which is faulty.

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to [email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

         To: [email-masked]
         Subject: getting rfcs

         help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:12:05 -0600 (MDT)

This may seem a little petty, but based on the abstract and title of this
one, shouldn't the line

be changed from none to 1888?

Eric

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:41:00 +0200

It probably should, although the title is fairly clear. 1888 now shows as
Historic in the index. But its true update is presumably going to be
draft-gray-rfc1888bis

    Brian