ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

2013-01-14 09:19:46


--On Saturday, January 12, 2013 16:19 -0800 David Conrad
<drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:

John,

On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:21 PM, John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
However, I don't think the
section of 2860 that you cite helps very much because there is
another way to read it.  

As you know, there are many in both high and low places who
choose the interpretation of 2860 that best fits their
particular interests, regardless of the intent of that
document (or, from personal experience, efforts to try to
explain history or reality).  As such, I'll repeat: I do not
believe it useful or helpful to go down that particular rat
hole.

On those general subjects -- that trying to open the question of
2050 is a rat hole and that we should not go down it, we
completely agree.  I suggest that, despite stumbling into it,
trying to do biblical-quality exegesis on the specific text and
wording of most RFCs is also a rat hole (or perhaps just a
different edge of the same one).  That seems especially true for
RFCs from an era when the intent was to document agreement among
parties who were working together rather than trying to
establish boundaries among parties who were inclined to play
power games.

Beyond that, I find myself in almost complete agreement with
Randy and will not repeat what he has written.

   john