Hiya, On 04/09/15 01:58, Sean Turner wrote: > Also, I wouldn’t get too wrapped around the updates header because > the meaning has changed over time. At some points it has been used > to point implementers at other related RFCs, but what I think the > IESG has settled onto now (Stephen correct me if I’m wrong) is that > the update header indicates that implementations of the updated RFC > are expected to implement the update (note that expected is too > strong of a word because implementing RFCs is purely voluntary - > there’s no protocol police).
Right. Though even that may change as IESG personnel change;-) Anyway, yes the UTA BCP (BCP195. [1]) is almost certainly what you'd reference when you next write an NTP RFC that mentions TLS. I would guess that folks in the NTP wg would be the ones who'd know whether writing a short RFC to make just that change is worthwhile or not. So probably the next step is to ask that question on the NTP wg list. Cheers, S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp195 _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
