On 11/2/2013 3:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Oh, and, of course, if we use my suggestion below, this document will
have to "update" 6410 as well as 2026.
It will "obsolete" both 6410 and 2026. It's replacing them.
No, I don't think so. It's replacing specific sections of them, but
not the whole documents. I think we'd have a very hard time getting
consensus on a full replacement of 2026.
sorry, I clearly misunderstood what was being proposed.I'd like to
blame it on Amtrak's impressive jossling of me today, but I suspect the
flaws is genetic.
As nearly as I can tell, now, what's meant is to replace 6410 with the
new document. Please, please, please don't tell me that /portions/ of
6410 are being replaced.
In any event, I've missed the logic for "updating", "replacing" or
whatever 6410, if all of this isn't just being merged into 2026bis.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net