We could still be, it was not clear to me that this was still a true statement.
The headers also do not explicitly state that we are doing an update to that although the document does still speak in those terms. It was also not clear to me if this was still going to be a true statement given the removal of all of the other update texts. I would be happy if this document does do an update. We need to make sure that it is explicit to everybody that this is going to happen. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:15 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'Klaas Wierenga'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [abfab] WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02 > > >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Schaad <[email protected]> writes: > > Jim> I support. Minor comment. This is really a question of > Jim> process. I think the first sentence in section 3 might need to > Jim> be removed or modified if we are no longer updating RFC 3748. > > I missed that we are no longer updating 3748. > how did that come about; I don't think I agree with that decision. _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
