John/Tony, The issue I have with either formulation is that BCP 32 currently means "RFC 2606 or its successors" - hence either formulation is redundant. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:17 PM > To: Tony Hansen; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: BCP or RFC references > > > > --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:36 PM -0400 Tony Hansen > <tony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think it would be better to use phrasing like this: > > > > BCP 32 (currently RFC 2606) > > And that, of course, has yet a different meaning, although > probably nearly the same one as the "2606 and successors" > version does. > > john > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf