Re: BIND vs RFC3253

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> If "updates" is our only choice for getting in a forward reference,
> that's certainly better than nothing.
> 
> So I'm fine with having the bind spec indicate that it updates both
> RFC2518 and RFC3253.

I raised the issue on the ietf-discuss mailing list 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg23697.html>) and 
consensus seems to be that "updates" can be used even if the new 
document does not *require* the previous document (such as in RFC2396 
updating the URI syntax without repeating definitions of specific URI 
schemes such as "ftp").

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760