IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Mon, 14 January 2013 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B3121F8ACE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iD4IcYEMRzpj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f51.google.com (mail-vb0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6D321F8AC3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fq11so3817883vbb.24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rVOLvDVM6lK7N9T9CU3R4cQ55o7/W37GC/4VQzyfXIY=; b=vBy8a9grZ2jY/P1t339cnrdtBznQjoB500qrJ17k4rVn/RSITEoMshMq6PBNDk+RG8 1NglcRIJAVSlP8jQZ/FgnBPNDaMEYLiY+ESi5L4FADmbFUfV1vnj/yk2YOF4TeBFA2Dj /FfcOfYxheax8HDb0K/RfBTFAhiPF5h2DSHcJS6NVs6G3gj8Oxij+cVnl1LaeY64o9Xh VnX4NZjRuV2Ynd1iL1NrSNDSgMjyWuvCtwvIrpl10T9ytJNnDvKa6jpU170Xi1RNF3TD vutBykfvN4RfA1TH9+94js1pgRWQj4Vnpx+RhI+Isz6zPnE7/X1SX08kMHdj5YWuLCxN guMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.5 with SMTP id z5mr103425195vco.22.1358191390858; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:23:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8854LRh-wjfLT-9Xg-njwPBW5PhUUFgJinRTr5hc9VWOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: john-ietf@jck.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:23:13 -0000

Hi John,

> 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).

We have to be reasonable in IETF. I don't understand your reason, do
you mean 2050 is not needing update or do you mean it is a rat hole.
There is no doubt that we need to close any rat hole, and to open to
produce new drafts,

I agree with Conrad and Moonesamy input,

AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email