On 8 Jan 2014, at 11:06 am, David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:
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'.
ok - I guess it's style - I prefer the shorter version with the common
understanding that NO RFC is written in the ink of eternal truth, but I can
live with either.
regards,
Geoff