Re: BIND vs RFC3253

• From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
• Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:46:26 -0500
• To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <OF552774B4.D89A7DEE-ON85256E0C.0066BBAF-85256E0C.00671AB9@us.ibm.com>

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.

Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 13:46:06 UTC