To:
James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
CC:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, iesg@ietf.org, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Date:
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:39:51 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<C7B53972.37D67%jgould@verisign.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
On 04/03/2010 10:18 AM, James Gould wrote: > I concur with Scott. The main goal of referencing RFC 3757 was for the > description of the SEP bit, where in RFC 4034 it references RFC 3757 for the > same reason. > Lets cite both and there is no issue. olafur -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se