John/Tony,
The issue I have with either formulation is that BCP 32
currently means "RFC 2606 or its successors" - hence either
formulation is redundant.
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:17 PM
To: Tony Hansen; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: BCP or RFC references
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:36 PM -0400 Tony Hansen
<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think it would be better to use phrasing like this:
BCP 32 (currently RFC 2606)
And that, of course, has yet a different meaning, although
probably nearly the same one as the "2606 and successors"
version does.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf