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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
