Subject: Re: [newtrk] 2026 > 1818

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:41:11 -0400 (EDT)

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

humm - I know I had cited 1818 at some point in the process but maybe
the text got dropped so the reference did as well

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