RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Well, back then.... when 1771 came out, it cannot have depended
on RFC2385... or so I think... :-)

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 21:54
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft 
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
>