Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> - What are the process limits? - What are the tooling limits? - Are >> the requirements of all levels of the stack the same? - Related, what >> are the necessary interoperability requirements? >> >> I think there are actually a number of related issues:
> - Non-semantic changes (editorial issues, errata, etc.)? - Semantic
> changes that aren't really new versions (e.g., RFC 8446-bis, which is
> largely a clarification of 8446, but does in fact contain new normative
> text)? - New versions
> My put for non-semantic changes is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-rfc-jit/. I suspect
> we'd need different processes for the other two.
There have been a few variants of RFCXXXX.VV. Yours is as good as others,
and I like it. I think the "JIT" tag will confuse some, but that's a bikeshed.
I'm not sure if this an RSWG topic or a procon one :-\
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
