I hate that maneuver. Why? Instead, let’s just use the text of the ID at the time of request with a change in the boiler plate specific to the IANA specification required model. That seems much more complicated. “Use the ID, except modified.” Does the Trust need to get involved, or are authors required to grant rights to IANA? What document format, the XML presumably?
Have the IANA - as it already seems to do - act as a document repository for the stable reference associated with the code point. To be clear, the document in the IANA repo is not an ID even if it shares text with one. Given the known problems we have already seen about general confusing among RFC streams and I-D’s, this seems naïve. Some wants to see, for example, what the TLS hybrid key exchange Kyber is and they have to follow a link to a document that looks almost exactly like an I-D, except that maybe one or two boilerplate sentences are different? That makes it clear exactly what the code point applies to, without begging the question of whether an ID is a citeable stable document. I disagree. It further muddies the waters a great deal.
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
