On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 6:36 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> It appears that Martin Thomson <[email protected]> said: > >Pulling back to Brian's email, because the discussion has wandered off. > > > >I reach a different conclusion. It's not really broken as it is. > > I'd draw a different conclusion. We really need a better way to update our > standards. Unsurprisingly, I agree with this. > > Other SDOs manage to publish updated editions of their standards with a > process > to add or change parts of them without having to reissue the whole thing. > Here is a potentially nonexclusive list of cases, in rough order from smallest to biggest: - Editorial (non-semantic) changes (typos, rewrites, etc.) - Clarifications that are theoretically semantic (e.g., fixing things where everyone agrees what the the spec should say but it doesn't say it or it's unclear). - Isolated semantic changes (e.g., forbidding algorithms, adding new algorithms, etc.) - Significant extensions (something like TLS ECH) - Total rewrites One important question is how high in this ladder we can go while maintaining a single document. My personal inclination is pretty high, up to and including some extensions, but I imagine others will have different beliefs. -Ekr > I realize this is a bigger discussion than whether to put Updates: or > Amends: in > the XML header, but I think it's a real problem we've been avoiding for a > very > long time. > > R's, > John > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
