W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: BIND vs RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:52:03 +0100
Message-ID: <3FF5CBE3.6050302@gmx.de>
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").


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 2 January 2004 14:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:30 UTC