Francesca do you have any guidance? No rush, I have a month to publish another draft :)
From: Spencer IETF <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 6:50 PM To: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Cc: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>, "an...@ietf.org" <an...@ietf.org>, "iot...@ietf.org" <iot...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Iotops] BRSKI and IDevID (non-!)issues with draft-ietf-uta-use-san For what it's worth, On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:52 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2bi...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com<mailto: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
