Hiya, On 07/10/2019 18:29, Rob Sayre wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: >> we can't "UPDATE" an I-D. > > Not true. If you need to refer to something that's been IESG-approved but > still in the RFC queue, you can leave a note for the RFC editor to update > the reference to the eventual RFC number.
That would be an UPDATE on the eventual RFC and not on the I-D. And in this case, it'd IMO not be a good plan as a) the relevant WG didn't want that, b) the I-D in question is part of a mega-cluster, so any dependency on it (as you suggest) risks loadsa delay if the cluster doesn't get unstuck, which can happen and c) our draft already stretches the header enough updating 85 RFCs - trying to add an I-D to that list would break tools and cause much pointless process-angst. Mostly (a) is the reason to not do it though. If you want to disagree with (a), then the right list for that would be the rtcweb list I guess, even though the WG is now concluded (which could, I guess, be (d);-) Overall, the cost isn't worth the benefit IMO. Cheers, S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
