- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:52:03 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 2 January 2004 14:52:59 UTC