New: uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage: news: Mention to obsolete IETF RFC 1036
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215735
Bug ID: 215735
Summary: uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage: news: Mention to obsolete
IETF RFC 1036
Product: Documentation
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: man-pages
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Regression: Nouri(7)::DESCRIPTION::Usage::news reads as:
```
news - Newsgroup or News message
news:newsgroup-name
news:message-id
A newsgroup-name is a period-delimited hierarchical name,
such as "comp.infosystems.www.misc". If <newsgroup-name>
is "*" (as in <news:*>), it is used to refer to "all
available news groups". An example is
<news:comp.lang.ada>.
A message-id corresponds to the Message-ID of IETF
RFC 1036, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt> without
the enclosing "<" and ">"; it takes the form
unique@full_domain_name. A message identifier may be
distinguished from a news group name by the presence of
the "@" character.
```It refers to an obsolete RFC[1]. We should update the info there.
[1]: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1036>
Signature · 4 lines
You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
[Bug 215735] uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage: news: Reference to obsolete IETF RFC 1036
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215735
Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) ([email protected]) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage: |uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage:
|news: Mention to obsolete |news: Reference to obsolete
|IETF RFC 1036 |IETF RFC 1036Signature · 4 lines
You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
[Bug 215735] uri.7: DESCRIPTION: Usage: news: Reference to obsolete IETF RFC 1036
In reply to [email protected]https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215735
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) ([email protected]) --- Should check the following RFCs that replace it:
1036:
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536>
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537>
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8315> (updates 5537)
Signature · 4 lines
You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.