On 8 Jan 2014, at 11:06 am, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Geoff, > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm reminded of a discussion (probably on this list) some time ago when kre reminded me that all RFCs can be updated or obsoleted in the future by subsequent RFCs. > > True, albeit whether their being updated/obsoleted in a timely matter is a separate issue (noting 2050, published in 1996, didn't get moved to Historic until 2013 despite questionable relevance of a majority of text in that RFC to the current allocation system). > >> I read this draft in a different sense, in that the text in this draft is a description of a here and now state of affairs that will presumably exist in the future until updated or obsoleted by a subsequent RFC, much the same as the fate of RFC2050 I suppose. > > And my suggested edits merely makes the point explicit that this is the case. I believe minimizing ambiguity in RFCs is a good thing. I have seen/experienced far too many cases of "As is written in the Holy 2050" as justification to feel comfortable in relying on people reading the draft/RFC 'correctly'. > ok - I guess it's style - I prefer the shorter version with the common understanding that NO RFC is written in the ink of eternal truth, but I can live with either. regards, Geoff