- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:03:28 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > 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 I think RFC2223bis is plain wrong here and needs to be fixed. For instance, RFC2396 (URI) "updates" previous URL specs that in fact not only contained URL syntax, but also specific schemes such as "ftp". However, RFC2396 clearly can be used without the documents it's updating. > case for 2518. In addition, there really is no pressing need > to get a connection between BIND and 3253. Hm. As RFC3253 speaks of bindings, and also introduces operations that create additional bindings to the same resource, I'd think that it makes a lot of sense to have that link... Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 2 January 2004 07:03:33 UTC