| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Index Subject Index | <<< Threads >>> |
>>>>> "paf" == =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <ISO-8859-1> writes:
>> ps: it does make sense to put both 2916 and 2916bis in the
>> record. perhaps someone should put together a BCP.
paf> No, this is just a transition issue which I hope is gone
paf> pretty quickly. I would guess the 2916 records are not needed
paf> one year after 2916bis is _really_ published as an RFC.
So 2916 will go away in 2030 or theresabouts? :-)
| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Subject | <<< Threads >>> |