Dear Area Director and WG Chairs, While I am in favour of splitting the document into two, the number of documents that the IESG is willing to process is not infinite. One advantage of the split is that products can more clearly articulate which RFC they support. (RFCXXXX vs RFCZZZZ, or RFCYYYY section A, or RFCYYYY section B)
Can you comment on this thread about splitting things up? I also have not heard very clearly about whether or not RFC8366bis will be adopted and worked on. If reducing number of documents is important, then one possibility is to merge draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher into RFC8366bis. Plus: fewer documents. Negative: potentially opens up RFC8366bis to new semantics? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
