Re: BIND and live property value consistency

On 7/8/05 1:32 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> to summarize: Lisa prefers to either delay BIND (by making it depend on
> RFC2518bis), or to duplicate explanations (that will need to go into
> RFC2518bis anyway). Geoff and I think that the draft as currently
> proposed is clear enough, and that none of the alternatives proposed by
> Lisa are better (Geoff, you'll correct me if I'm wrong here).

I am very negative on a solution that duplicates normative text in two
documents. It is surprisingly difficult to keep it all in sync. (Note I'm
not against non normative duplication but that's a different story)

Cullen