On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 8:48 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > Indeed. I was trying to be cute, but I'm totally not wedded to it. -Ekr > > 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 > ** > > > > >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
