Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT)

*>  
  *> > 	* was not even examined in the "requirements" review
  *> > 	that led up to RFC 1123 and is not referenced there.
  *> 
  *> 	RFC 1123 -> RFC 952 -> RFC 921
  *>  	

Your "->" arrows here apparently mean only "contains a reference to".
This is not an explicit dependence relationship like "updates" or
"obsoletes", and nothing can be imfered from "contains a reference
to" except thaton Postel was academically thorough.

Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:21:28 -0400

--On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 08:51 -0700 Bob Braden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Your "->" arrows here apparently mean only "contains a
> reference to". This is not an explicit dependence relationship
> like "updates" or "obsoletes", and nothing can be imfered from
> "contains a reference to" except thaton Postel was
> academically thorough.

Indeed.  But the point was that those references do not exist,
despite that thoroughness and the rather comprehensive "what do
we need to say about the DNS" review that went into 1123.

If there had been a real intention to instantiate 952 or 921 as
"requirements" or the basis for them, I would have expected
either

	* Some discussion in 1123 that refers to or repeats the
	rules,  or 
	
	* At least a 'see also' style of reference in 1123, or

	* Some other relatively recent (compared to 1985)
	document that restates or refers to the rules in
	question.   As an example, those statements might
	reasonably have been picked up in, or referenced from,
	RFC 2181, but aren't there either.

and

	* A status in the RFC Index that is a little stronger
	than "Unknown" 

Those expectations are clearly just inferential, but I believe
that they strongly support my point that reaching back to 921 to
claim a requirement on how applications must (sic) behave today
is something of a stretch even if not altogether bogus.

    john