Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> As a co-author, I'd like to nudge this thread (without stopping the
> others, of course) so the WG gets a good sense of whether it wants to
> use this as a basis for updating RFC 9280. We are tracking the other
> threads for later changes to the draft, but we still need to know if
> this draft will be adopted by the WG.
Having read it now for the first time.
It's very much a patch document against RFC 9280.
Understanding what is version 3 and what is version 4 might be a challenge
for a new reader. In general, though, I find the the way the patch is being
done to be much more understandable than other patch documents. (Good job)
} * Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent
} stakeholder from IETF/IRTF participants. While IETF/IRTF
} participants and others involved in the development and production
} of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct,
} overlapping sets.
I'd go further and say that IETF/IRTF participants consume RFCs in a very
different way than external people (muggles).
I would go further to identify Consumers of RFCs to be non-insiders, making
the set much less overlapping. I think the RPC should be free to do things
that IETF insiders might find less helpful if it helps muggles.
} Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
} publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
} possible.
I know that this is intended to allow for fixing XML, TXT, HTML renderings.
a. Does it include updates to document status?
(Like moved to Historical)
b. updates to broken links/references.
(I'm not arguing one way or another, I just don't know from the text. I'm
also okay if this is intended to be an RPC judgement call)
Please adopt.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
