I think you get the message from the RFC Editor below.
I need a new version of this document.
Patrik
Co-Area Director, Applications Area
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>From: jkrey@ISI.EDU
>Posted-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>To: iesg@ISI.EDU
>Subject: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05
>Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU
>
>
>
>Ned, Patrik, IESG folks,
>
>I have been wrestling with bad URL links in this document. While the
>authors have been very helpful in tracking down live links to replace
>the cited bad links, I have come upon an additional problem with this
>RFC-to-be.
>
>Laced throughout this document are pointers and citations to
>Internet-Drafts. This includes full <draft-blah-blah.0*.txt> strings.
>Many of them noted as "expired" I-Ds AND also noted as the
>"Authoritative reference" in each descriptive section. At first, I
>attempted to replace any "draft" type mention with "work in progress",
>which is our practice. I am afraid that in this particular case, it is
>too much!
>
>Since we still have the "rule" about not citing/pointing to
>Internet-Drafts in RFCs, does the IESG and relevant Area Directors
>still agree that this document should go forward in its current state?
>
>Thanks! Joyce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST