IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> (Internet Numbers Registries) to Informational RFC

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Wed, 08 January 2014 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0021AE267 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:55:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WdstQX9ay3-T for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from so-mailgw.apnic.net (so-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 863A11AE262 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:55:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=M07vlI2d3sd1TrIe8ZUsKdCCCs/za1e2mJVtT5ysnRs=; b=Zfak0/TLhDlJtqp93M93+7Ni0MCfM6AHpTvxzZkEatk6D5Fzua3vzkzQmcxbDF4jHj1Uo+ILwqm/w sI93aFA6xnb6Ti9pNHC61CQybPX6CQVi+zY7Fly+IUDTPRsgG3WTZDddVbyloEHhVJoIqleTGNc8rP KPOwmyAyAr/u3cgE=
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.93.247]) by so-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:55:36 +1000 (EST)
Received: from [100.46.117.84] (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:55:34 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> (Internet Numbers Registries) to Informational RFC
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <438A344B-28FE-40E5-B04C-7ED5A0815B60@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:55:27 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <AB92F2C0-161F-451A-9125-230EA02B16D9@apnic.net>
References: <20131216175534.1390.8446.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131216121747.0cc284d8@resistor.net> <36FB4FC7-0E97-4BE1-BFFE-394DF406DB3D@vigilsec.com> <BF91FE26-DAD6-4565-A7EB-2A1E3714A862@virtualized.org> <D4E43FF3-AA65-4748-B0AF-F514CE920FDA@apnic.net> <F64C7692-B21E-4DAF-85F6-8F98C502C0A7@virtualized.org> <6172D4D0-591E-45D5-9E2D-2F5246E06D61@apnic.net> <438A344B-28FE-40E5-B04C-7ED5A0815B60@virtualized.org>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:55:52 -0000

On 8 Jan 2014, at 11:06 am, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

> Geoff,
> 
> On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email