On 5/19/21 22:39, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:33 PM Zhenlei Huang <zlei.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> IMHO, I'd like to see the RFC reference remain. I see rgrimes response >>> that the RFC's can change with errata and bis docs, but the anchor still >>> provides additional context that one can use to learn more about why >>> this code exists, and they can chase any future forward references. >> RFC's indeed change, and I think it is common in network stack. Then we >> need guidelines to better regulate these. CC rgrimes . >> > > Sorry, RFCs themselves do not change -- one of the distinctive features of > RFCs is precisely that they are immutable once published. > The sentiment that what the current RFC for a given topic is, can change, is > something that I can agree with, but that's not quite what was being > discussed.
Agreed, which is why I say the reference still has value and one can use it as a basis to follow the errata and newer docs. That said, I've expressed my desire to leave the reference in, and I'll leave it at that. I didn't think this would be that controversial. Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc _______________________________________________ dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-commits-src-main To unsubscribe, send any mail to "dev-commits-src-main-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
