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

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

John,

Just to be clear:

On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:19 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.  

If the choice is leaving 2050 as is or reopening it to update it to reflect modern reality, I'd favor the latter.  I actually think the good parts of 2050 are probably covered in other documents and as such it's safe to unceremoniously bury 2050 in the back yard, but haven't bothered to actually verify this.

> 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).  

This is what I view as the pointless and exceedingly painful rathole and I'd recommend not going down it.

Regards,
-drc