Re: RFC 4071 (Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and I-Ds)

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Isnt there a formal policy on the Mirrors and their accuracy? - this is a 
real problem since if someone was to take policy statements from a Mirror 
that wasn't synched properly they would get bad policy and procedure info 
eh?

T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard at pobox.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: RFC 4071 (Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and I-Ds)


> C. M. Heard wrote:
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20051130065636/http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4071.txt
> >
> > agrees with the canonical version on the RFC Editor's web site.
> >
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20060411074747/http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4071.txt,
> >
> > which represents the current contents of 
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4071.txt,
> > consists of the concatenation of RFC 4071 and RFC 4371, which together 
> > form
> > BCP 101.
> >
> > This appears to be well-intentioned but misguided meddling.
> As I said in my message on the 21st, this was an error at the RFC Editor, 
> and has been reverted (the RFC has been restored from backup from a time 
> before the error was made).
>
> I don't know how long it will take before the IETF mirror picks up the 
> fix.
>
>                   Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg