I learned something new: we can reference a BCP (instead of an RFC) and even if the RFC gets up-dated we will still have a stable reference. (See Stephen's response to my question below).
This is what we should do for our documents when we reference TLS in the future. We would reference the yet-to-become BCP (currently UTA-TLS document) and we essentially point to the recommended usage for TLS (version, ciphersuite, everything). Isn't that great? -------------------------------------------------------- On 02/04/15 19:09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > if I understand it correctly, you are saying if we reference a BCP # > (instead of the RFC) then a revised RFC will get the same BCP #. I have > never heard about that and if that's indeed true that would be cool. I > might also have misunderstood your idea though. Yep, that's it. XML2RFC makes it hard but you can do it, worst case via an RFC editor note S. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
