RE: draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

this doc went back to the WG to fix a number of problems


there is a note about the LDAPv2 question in the tracker comments I pointed them
to

Scott

----
>From harald@alvestrand.no  Fri Mar  7 05:45:50 2003
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:45:44 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>,
   Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt
In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155011569D0@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
References:  <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155011569D0@nl0006exch001u.nl.luce
 nt.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline



--On torsdag, mars 06, 2003 16:34:10 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
<bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

> Inline
>>
>> > RFC1777 is HISTORIC (as per RFC3494).
>>
>> can we fix that with an RFC ed note?
>>
> Sure. Propose one.

Here's a proposal.... better mention it to the authors first; it 
occasionally happens that people WANT to refer to LDAPv2 (happened in 
PKIX), but when that happens, it's usually a far more intimate reference; I 
don't think these people care about the difference.

RFC Editor:

Please replace all references to RFC 1777 (LDAPv2) with a reference to RFC 
3377 (LDAPv3).

There are two references of the form [RFC1777] in section 3.7 of the 
document, and one reference in the references section.