On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:12:44PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > 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
Recent IESGs have been taking the stance that it's weird to have "Updates:" to a document that's not yet an RFC, mostly preferring to pull the document in question back and get changed directly. But ... > 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 .... given that C238 is unblocked, dependencies-wise, that seems questionable in this case. (The whole set of documents does have to go through the xmlv2-->xmlv3 conversion, though.) > 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. That's roughly where I'm landing, too, though as noted previously, it's largely up to the sponsoring AD. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
