IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

<case@snmp.com> Fri, 31 July 1998 14:09 UTC

Delivery-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09:33 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id KAA19522 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id KAA27931 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA19951; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from seymour4.snmp.com (seymour4.snmp.com [192.147.142.4]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA19944; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: case@snmp.com
Received: by seymour4.snmp.com (cf v2.11c-SNMP) id KAA09812; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:06:53 -0400
Message-Id: <199807311406.KAA09812@seymour4.snmp.com>
To: ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

>Bert, you are quite right. Would "Informational" status relieve
>people's concerns? If not, please speak up.

i also agree ... informational is the correct disposition

regards,
jdc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email