Subject: RFC 3039bis is not needed

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:52:52 +0100

The title of my previous e-mail was wrong:

It is not : "RFC 3039 is not needed", but
             "RFC 3039bis is not needed"

Hereafter is a copy of the text included in the previous message:

****************************************************************

Stefan,

Up to now, no argument brought to the list justifies that we should
change and thus revise RFC 3039.

We have enough other work to do and changes to that document are not needed.
For all standards, we need both stability and backward compatibility.

Denis