Re: BIND vs RFC3253

I agree that some reference to RFC3253 would be useful (e.g. something
like "this provides a detailed description of the binding model that
is implicit in RFC3253"), but I wouldn't say that it "updates" RFC3253,
since it doesn't change anything in RFC3253.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 12/30/2003 06:34:44 AM:
> As RFC3253 already talks about bindings, shouldn't the BIND spec be 
> labelled as "updating RFC3253"? The benefit being that a reader of 
> RFC3253 using the RFC Index could actually find out that there's an 
> additional document that may help understanding RFC3253.