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

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:44:47 +0100

Hi Moonesamy,

I also think similar with Carpenter, why reclassify to historic.
rfc2050 is still valid, and why limiting the ietf?

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:23:10 +0100

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