On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 09:46, David Schinazi wrote: >> Section 7.1, send para: "If a future document wishes to define compatibility >> between two versions that support retry, that document MUST specify…" Is an >> RFC >> allowed to impose MUST constraints on future RFCs? Not a rhetorical question, >> just never seen anything like this before. (Also 7.3) > > Yes, I think this is common practice as far as I know. Future documents > can however > remove the requirement, but that generally requires an Updates tag.
Just to expand on this (minor) point. This is a requirement that is imposed on future RFCs that aim to use this RFC. This RFC is effectively a framework under which those future RFCs operate. The integrity of the design in this RFC - specifically the security claims it makes - depends on those RFCs complying with this an other similar requirements, each expressed as a MUST. Therefore, this is really saying "if you wish to use this RFC and gain the benefits of having done so, you need to do this".
