Hi Joel, On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 3:02 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> I read this note twice, and then went and reread the draft. > > As far as I can tell, the "amends" tag is trying to do something that > the updates tag does not do today. There is a way to say that efforts > to implement X MUST implement Y. That is not by "Updates". It is by > "Obsoletes." I grant that writing the full draft Y to obsolete X is a > pain. But having a set of draft that say if you do X, you must do Y, > and if you do Y, you must do Z, is simply a minefield asking folks to > get it wrong. I think this is right. Asking people to chase a bunch of references to know what they have to do is not good. > Note: I can believe we have sometimes abused "updates" when we should > have done a revision. That doesn't make it right. And very much does > not make it something I think we should do as a matter of course. (I > think I had missed this because I simply did not believe we inte4nded > it. But Michael was quite clear that he intended it. Clarity is good.) > I fear that we have done this fairly often. To use an example I am familiar with, TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) is updated by at least the following RFCs which change its behavior: * RFC 6176 forbids offering SSLv2 * RFC 7568 forbids offering SSLv3 * RFC 7465 forbids the use of RC4 * RFC 9155 forbids MD5 and SHA-1 -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
