>I would suggest having draft-carpenter-rescined-3683 also obsolete RFC
>3934; it's not that long, so including the two paragraphs from RFC
>3934 and then modifying them is probably going to be better than
>trying to have one RFC try to impose an interpretation which is
>counter to the "plain english" language of "not more then 30 days" and
>trying to claim that "not more than 30 days" shouldn't be interpreated
>as "not more than 30 days".
>
>Let's not do the "Words mean whatever I want them to mean" trick....
+1
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
