For what it's worth, On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:52 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> > Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > That is great to hear, thanks for the careful analysis. > > >> Some nits: > > > All look like good things to do, I'll make a PR soonish. > > > What do you think of just rewriting this to completely replace 6125, > > rather than trying to be a "diff RFC"? > > If you mean, rfc6125bis, then it seems like it would risk opening wounds. > But, wholesale, "replace section X with ...." might be useful. > I'd absolutely run this past the responsible AD. The IESG's view of patch RFCs versus diff RFCs varies over time, and I discovered late in my third term that the IESG didn't have a common understanding of what we should do in this case - and embarrassingly, I was in the rough. Datatracker references on request, or you can trust me on this one ... Best, Spencer
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
