Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for that.
> It suggests to me that a way to square this circle, without any need
> for formal changes, is to change the draft to describe this practice:
> if you use "updates" you should include (sub)sections that clearly
> state how the target RFCs are extended and/or changed.
Yes, I agree.
I don't want to replace "Updates", I want to make the ways in which it
Updates are used clearer.
Whether or not a document that "merely" extends another protocol/document
using the provided IANA registries is a significant revision is a subject for
the WG to decide.
Some such extensions are not.
To pick something simple, I think, RFC8659 defines the CAA RR.
It does *not* update RFC1034 or any of the DNSSEC RFCs (despite essentially
requiring DNSSEC), and that's correct. It does extend DNS, so it would be
nice if someone writing a DNS wire or presentation format parser was aware of
it, but they can also get there via IANA registry.
--
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]
