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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, January 12, 2013 16:19 -0800 David Conrad
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:21 PM, John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> 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