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

Hi John,

> 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).
We have to be reasonable in IETF. I don't understand your reason, do
you mean 2050 is not needing update or do you mean it is a rat hole.
There is no doubt that we need to close any rat hole, and to open to
produce new drafts,

I agree with Conrad and Moonesamy input,

AB