Re: Son-of-1036

Hi Charles,

> The RFC Editor is proceeding with the draft I submitted in May. It will be
> a Historic RFC as we had asked, but they want a line below that to state
> that it is "Superseded by RFC5536 and RFC5537" (that is in addition to the
> clear warnings in the Abstract and in the Preface to the effect that the
> document is NOT to be considered as a basis for current implementations).

Does it also imply that RFC 5536 and RFC 5537 will mention that they
update that RFC when dislpayed on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/>?
(just above "Category: Standards Track")



> Is there anything else that might cause confusion and that should be
> warned against?

Shouldn't the date "3 May 2009" be changed to "2 June 1994"?  (and the sentence
"This document is identical to the last distributed version of Son of 1036,
dated 2 June 1994, except for reformatting" rewritten to say it was submitted
on May, 3rd 2009)
That date would highlight more the fact it is an *old* RFC.

It is just a suggestion; maybe it is impossible to change that date.


Thanks for all your work, Charles.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Hâte-toi de bien vivre et songe que chaque jour
  est à lui seul une vie. » (Sénèque)