[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:53:59 -0500
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Apr 2003 21:50:56 +0200." <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550148419E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550148419E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>Is this an after-the-fact documentation?
>
>As far as I know, RFC1771 has been at DS for a loooonggg time already
>

I just noticed its status last night, and thought it was a bug until 
Alex corrected me.  This means that it was inappropriately advanced, of 
course.  I'll have to adjust the wording of the document to note that 
1771 is recycling at Draft.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

References:
- RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft
Next by Date: RE: How large are IETF mailing lists?
Previous by thread: RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft
Next by thread: RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread