Subject: [newtrk] 2026 > 1818

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:25:53 +0200

So, we have

1818 Best Current Practices. J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter. August
      1995. (Format: TXT=4114 bytes) (Also BCP0001) (Status: BEST CURRENT
      PRACTICE)

and

2026 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3. S. Bradner. October
      1996. (Format: TXT=86731 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1602) (Updated by
      RFC3667, RFC3668, RFC3932, RFC3979, RFC3978) (Also BCP0009) (Status:
      BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

However, 2026 gives the current definition of BCPs, at much more length
than 1818.

Is there a reason that 2026 doesn't obsolete 1818?

     Brian

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:21:11 +0200

To my mind, this is an error in the RFC Index.

            Harald

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:08:35 +0200

> To my mind, this is an error in the RFC Index.

That was my first thought, but 2026 doesn't even cite
1818, which was probably the initial oversight.

    Brian

.