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

Re: BIND vs RFC3253

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:13:03 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF877A9CAD.DC94262A-ON85256E0D.00531A8B-85256E0D.00539043@us.ibm.com>

In the context of that statement in RFC2223bis, I think
we're best off just saying that the BIND document updates 2518,
and not 3253.  It just isn't the case that the BIND document
"can only be used in conjunction with" 3253, while this is the
case for 2518.  In addition, there really is no pressing need
to get a connection between BIND and 3253.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 12/30/2003 04:43:18 PM:

> Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
> >>ever, 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...
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Why doesn't "augmented" cover this case?  My reading of the text above 
is
> > that "it can only be used in conjunction with the earlier 
> document" _for_the_
> > areas_of_overlap.  That is, you can update RFC XXXX and still have
> > material that is stand alone that is not overlapping with RFC XXXX.
> 
> Well, that would make sense, but in that case maybe 
> draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis should be clarified...
> 
> Regards, Julian
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2003 10:13:19 GMT

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