Ben wrote: > There's a few ways to handle that: > > 1) Treat rate-control as an informative reference, and say you're doing > something mostly like rate control, but not quite identical. That would > require quite a bit more normative language to describe what you're actually > doing. > > 2) Make this draft update rate-control to allow for empty bodies when you > don't have location info yet. Put some tightly constrained language around > it. so that this doesn't become a _general_ udpate. > > 3) Since rate-control has, to my knowledge, not been pubreq'd yet, try to get > the authors to modify the language to allow for empty bodies for this use > case. > > I personally think 3 is the best path forward, as I think the empty notify is > generally useful for rate-control, and implementor are likely to do it anyway.
I was not under the impression from reading rate-control that that document was modifying 3265 to prevent notifiers from sending an empty notify. But, your suggestion is a reasonable one. Reading the rate-control text you quoted earlier in the thread could lead to the impression that this is the case. I've added the rate control authors to the thread. --Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
