Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: IESG Statement on Copyright

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]] 

> 
> In my archives I found a discussion that tooks place between 16 Oct
> 2005 and 4 Jan 2006 as to whether RFC 4181 should be listed 
> as updating STD 58 (RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580), as suggested 
> by Alfred Hoenes.  We decided that the answer was NO, but in 
> the process there was an inconclusive discussion as to 
> whether the MUSTs in 4181 that go beyond the requirements of 
> STD 58 (there are some in sec. 4.6.4) ought to be SHOULDs 
> instead.  The subject lines in the relevant threads are "RFC 
> 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580" and "Erratum for RFC 
> 4181".  If it's too much of a pain to search the mib-doctors 
> archive, I can make the 28 messages that I saved from those 
> threads available as a Unix mbox file.
> 
> Mike Heard
> 

This was the conversation that I also had in mind, although for some
reasons I remembered it being more dramatic than it looks to me now. 

Dan