Since It’s an obsoletes I can get behind that. No need to drop the Updates header.
spt > On May 30, 2025, at 13:27, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > My general view is that we should treat this RFC as replacing 8446 and so > whatever should have appeared in 8446 is what should appear here. > > I'm certainly open to the argument that 8446 got these headers wrong, and > it's not clear to me that there is a right answer. > > -Ekr > > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com > <mailto:s...@sn3rd.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 30, 2025, at 12:08, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org >>> <mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm certainly not here to defend the distinctions between Updates and >>> Obsoletes, etc. >>> >>> Ah yeah, I remember those discussions … >>> >>> The 8422 change is new to RFC 8446bis, so we need to address that now. >>> >>> Remove the reference. >> >> Since RFC 8446 updated four RFCs, 5705, 6066, 7627, 8422, and this one >> obsoletes RFC 8446 should we just drop Updates column entirely? NOTE: This >> was a comment I got from the IESG on -rfc8447bis; granted its and updated >> and not an obsoletes. >> >> spt >>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
