Re: Citation bug in RFC 2425

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@IMC.ORG> Fri, 29 October 1999 23:20 UTC

Received: by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id TAA26652 for; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25291 for <>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Default ( []) by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23545; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:14:16 -0700
To: braden@ISI.EDU,,
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@IMC.ORG>
Subject: Re: Citation bug in RFC 2425
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"

At 03:16 PM 10/29/99 -0700, braden@ISI.EDU wrote:
>Using a URL in a citation in an RFC seems like a bad idea.  There may
>be exceptions, e.g., an or URL might be less
>risky.  But expecting a URL in general to stay invariant for 25 years
>seems dubious.

Not to worry in this case: it wasn't a normative reference. In fact, that 
reference wasn't mentioned at all in the body of the RFC. :-) They did 
manage to get the URL correct in RFC2426, where it is also a non-normative 

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium