I really don’t think we should call this v4. For me we would need a v4 if we figure that v3 failed and we want something new. What I see proposed are clarification to the v3 model but not changes. If we start working on a 9280bis, I’m against adoption. Let’s stop the meta discussions and actually start working and executing the v3 model!
> On 5. Feb 2025, at 01:58, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > > I made an observation to Paul that this document cannot be read by itself, it > reads as a patch-set to the existing 9280. > > It's a fine body of work. But, the outcome (in my opinion) should not be this > document becomes "v4" but that this document is the working space to produce > a v4 which should be capable of being read by itself, and which clearly > supersedes 9280. > > (insert drawing of George behind a lemonade stand with a sign saying > "convince me I am wrong") > > cheers > > -George > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
