On Jul 4, 2026, at 01:42, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I would not deny that there are inconsistencies with Updates. Let's just fix > that. In fact, I thought Barry Leiba had created a best practice for that by > saying that when you Update a specification you have to say how you update it > in the front matter. Are we still so inconsistent in Updates' use?
+1 to Eliot. As we have recently learned, the IETF controls the Internet Drafts series. The vast majority of RFCs that update earlier RFCs are in the IETF stream. The IESG can have a rule that says something like: If a draft going into IETF Last Call is marked as 'Updates:', the abstract must have a short explanation of how it is updating, and the introduction (and possibly other sections) must have complete explanations. --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
