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

Re: BIND vs RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:18:04 +0100
Message-ID: <3FF1EB8C.8010402@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> 
> Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> And "read both" is what I'd really like to express. Geoff?

However, looking at 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt>, 
section 2.11:

          Updates

             Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
             augmented by the new document.  The new document cannot be
             used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
             earlier document.

So maybe we need to leave it as is...

Regards,

Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 16:18:40 GMT

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