Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> (Internet Number

Geoff,

On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
> I'm reminded of a discussion (probably on this list) some time ago when kre 
> reminded me that all RFCs can be updated or obsoleted in the future by 
> subsequent RFCs.
True, albeit whether their being updated/obsoleted in a timely matter is a 
separate issue (noting 2050, published in 1996, didn't get moved to Historic 
until 2013 despite questionable relevance of a majority of text in that RFC to 
the current allocation system).

>  I read this draft in a different sense, in that the text in this draft is a 
> description of a here and now state of affairs that will presumably exist in 
> the future until updated or obsoleted by a subsequent RFC, much the same as 
> the fate of RFC2050 I suppose.
And my suggested edits merely makes the point explicit that this is the case. I 
believe minimizing ambiguity in RFCs is a good thing. I have seen/experienced 
far too many cases of "As is written in the Holy 2050" as justification to feel 
comfortable in relying on people reading the draft/RFC 'correctly'.

Regards,
-drc

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail