Oops - s/NTP/NNTP/g below:-) And since there's no active NNTP wg, I guess asking on some relevant list(s) is the thing to do. If folks there think that a short RFC to just fix this is useful then feel free to get back to me and we can figure how best to progress that.
Cheers, S. On 04/09/15 12:57, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
