We often have the case where IANA is asked to do something and by the time the RFC is published, they’ve already done it. In those situations we often change “IANA is requested to …” to “IANA has …” This particular situation is not different. If we obsolete 8446 and don’t carry the considerations forward, completely, in this draft, it needlessly raises the questions of (a) if 8446 is obsoleted, are structure and content of the existing registries still in line with IETF consensus; or (b) do you mean to only obsolete *those parts* of 8446 that don’t talk about the IANA consideratons?
I strongly agree with EKR, that having a single complete spec, rather than a “diff spec” is an important thing to do here. It was also the WG view as well.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
