W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2000

Re: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 07:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200009101458.HAA26780@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.cern.ch>, jg@w3.org

Generally, when an RFC gets prepared, one tries to catch references
that have been obsoleted, and the RFC editor also tries to do so as well.

We'll try to get it fixed for the full standard draft.
				- Jim

--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg@pa.dec.com

Received on Sunday, 10 September 2000 15:59:58 EDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Scott Lawrence: "RE: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048"
Previous message: Bjoern Hoehrmann: "Re: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048"
In reply to: Bjoern Hoehrmann: "Re: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048"
Next in thread: Scott Lawrence: "RE: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:39 EDT