W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: BIND vs RFC3253

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:43 -0800
Message-Id: <p06020401bc178766397b@[129.46.227.161]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Cc: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

In general, I don't see much of a problem with indicating that a spec
like this "updates" a previous document even if the document doesn't
change specific items in the previous document.  Speaking personally,
when I see "updates", I take it as "read both".  The contrast is, obviously,
with "supersedes" which implies one can/should read only the second
document. 

Just my take on it,
			regards,
				Ted Hardie


At 7:54 PM +0100 12/30/2003, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Well, "updates" is the only type of link we *can* use (nothing else would create a forward reference in the RFC Index).
>
>Besides, I'd say that it in fact "updates" RFC3253, because it updates RFC2518's descriptions for MOVE, COPY, DELETE etc in presence of multiple bindings. Thus, it indeed updates both RFC2518 and RFC3253.
>
>Regards, Julian
>
>
>--
><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 14:52:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT