Paul,I am not claiming that the IAB nor anyone else was wrong at the time RFC 9280 was released.
That section served a dual purpose: to describe historical properties we thought worthy of documenting, and to indicate that those properties required special care when we change them. The historical part got diluted when we changed things. We are no longer describing history, but we are still noting important properties that require special care when we change them.
The easiest way to address my somewhat small issue (or so I thought) is simply to drop the words "historical" and "historically" in that section. My suggestion/advice of this group: *please view these proposed changes as editorial with no changes to process, policy, or authority. *I just want the document to be accurate in terms of what it is saying.
Eliot On 18.06.2025 17:10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 18, 2025, at 07:48, Eliot Lear<l...@lear.ch> wrote:You're not actually addressing my point.I misunderstood your point because I did not expect you to be proposing a factual change to RFC 9280 at this time.The chapeau is now inaccurate.I'm not sure what you mean by "now". The text in the draft is identical to RFC 9280.Here's the existing text:7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series This section lists some of the properties that have been historically regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these properties are possible within the processes defined in this document. As described in Sections Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3, proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be identified, have been carefully considered.Some of the properties are not historical,The IAB of the time thought so.and I would like them not to be represented as such.We can make that change, and note the change as a sub-section of Section 1. Can you please give text for that section about why we currently think the IAB was wrong to use "Historical" and "historically"?Even simply removing the word "Historical" in the title and "historically" above would suffice. No need to change the text below. Less is more.Others on this thread disagree with you about not changing the text in the subsections of Section 7. I'm trying, as co-author, to meet differing views. --Paul Hoffman
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
