Hi! I largely agree, and think this is worth a LOT of time exploring.
Eliot On 08.07.2026 03:54, Eric Rescorla wrote:
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 ourstandards.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 whereeveryone 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]
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
