On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
I tend the other way, so we need an example or two. If you read the
abstract of RFC 6040, it says: "On decapsulation, [RFC 6040] updates both
RFC 3168 and RFC 4301 to add new behaviours for previously unused
combinations of inner and outer headers." Which means that even though
existing implementations are not affected until they encounter these new
message variants, we use "Updates" because new implementations are
expected to include the new behavior.
That's an interesting example, one from outside our WG. Note, however, that
RFC 6040 is the *only* RFC that updates RFC 4301 so far. It seems odd that
it is the only one like this draft that says "and you need to change your
PAD processing for this new thing".
Similarly, RFC 5282 Updates RFC 4306. Even though you only needed to change
your implementation if you added AEAD. But it's not very important either
way.
I'm not sure what the IETF definition is for "Update an RFC". I would
say this RFC only adds to 4306. That is, if you do not implement this
document you do not need to know about this "update". I would expect an
"updated by" to be mandatory reading material for an implementor of the
RFC being updated.
I'm fine either way, but I am leaning towards not specifying updated by.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
