* Yes, that inconsistency needs fixing, but I thought we agreed that (a) it obsoletes, i.e. replaces, 9280 and (b) there is no fundamental change to the model, so it's still version 3 (or 3.1 if you like).
I strongly prefer 3.1 as it’s *different* from what 9280 described, but if consensus is to leave it, okay. * I think it's common practice to carry forward and expand the acknowledgments in an obsoleting document. In the documents I’ve been involved with – 9281, 9525, 2026bis draft, and 2418bis draft – saying “we acknowledge the contributions of the previous authors” and then explicitly naming anyone who should be acknowledged in the current document. Bundling both together seems wrong.
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
