Re: IETF Y2K Compliance...

Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> Fri, 09 July 1999 15:20 UTC

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:10:29 -0700
From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Y2K Compliance...
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:42:50 -0500" <04d301beca19$52c88a20$0101010a@naperville.unir.com>
To: Jim Fleming <jfleming@anet.com>
Cc: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>, Jim Fleming <jfleming@anet.com>, fred@cisco.com, Erik.Huizer@sec.nl, ietf@ietf.org, poised@lists.tislabs.com
Message-id: <01JDCQXKNU4M8WZTRO@INNOSOFT.COM>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> YYMM ????

> Archive: ftp://ftp.tis.com/pub/lists/poised/poised.yymm

Sigh. This is a nonproblem -- for one thing, there would be no difficulty
using the lower two digits of a years in such a setup, at least not
for 60 years or so. And switching to .yyyymm would be easy too, as would
renaming all the files at any point in the future.

But more importantly, this has absolutely no connection with any protocol
work done by the IETF. As such, it isn't even an IETF issue to begin
with.

If you want to discuss Y2K issues in IETF protocols, please direct your
postings to the appropriate list for the Year 2000 WG.

				Ned