Subject: RFC 4119 -- a classical dilemma

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:56:53 +0100 (MEZ)

Hello,
reading the recently published RFC 4119 authored by you, I found
one of the most famous logical paradoxes incorporated there,
making the pure existence of RFC 4119 very doubtful  :-)

Details:
=======

On mid-page 8, RFC 4119 specifies:
                                                     [...]  If the
    value in the 'retention-expires' element has already passed when
    the Location Recipient receives the Location Object, the Recipient
    MUST discard the Location Object immediately.

Now, RFC 4119 contains examples of Location Objects. Thus, the reader
of RFC 4119 (or his workstation) becomes a Location Recipient.
But those examples of Location Objects contained in RFC 4119 specify
a 'retention-expires' date that has passed *long before* the
publication of RFC 4119.
Therefore, every reader of RFC 4119, and every system receiving a
copy of RFC 4119, MUST immediately discard the RFC; moreover,
even the RFC editor SHOULD NOT ever have processed the draft!

But in this case, the above rule would not have become effective,
making these actions, creation and reading of the RFC, legitimate
again ...

Very nice!!!!

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+