On February 23, 2022 at 8:35:03 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
Chris: Hi! > I support these changes, and thanks for taking this up. :-) > I guess it makes sense to not go full-in and re-spin the base docs if there > literally are no other changes (although one wonders if it will actually > change things like CLIs if we don't). > > That said, quite a few errata exist for both of these documents. > > Maybe an even better way forward with these types of inclusivity updates, for > base documents with errata, would be to re-spin the base doc incorporating > the existing errata *and* the improved terminology. Hmmm... That sounds like a lot of work for a couple of words. The concern with opening up a big document like rfc2328/rfc5340 is that other things may creep in: "let's fix this", "let's add that", "let's include the Updates", "what about security?", etc. Adam Roach wrote a draft [1] that describes a process for changes like this (terminology + errata). The IESG has used it a couple of times, but it is not formal. It would be up to the AD to approve, communicate with the IESG, etc. [BTW, I am not the AD for this WG, nor am I acting as an AD when discussing this document, and I will recuse myself from IESG discussions about it.] Alvaro. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-roach-bis-documents _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
