Jim, Joel & Bruno, > On Mar 16, 2021, at 8:42 AM, James Guichard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear WG: > > A quick note from the chairs for clarity with regards to > draft-srcomdt-spring-compression and as a matter of process for future > unrelated documents. > > With regard to section 5.2 of > draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05, the chairs note that this > is primarily an IETF process issue, not a technical issue about solutions. > The chairs also remind people of two aspects of IETF process: > > • First, an IETF draft which modifies an existing PS or BCP requirement > will not be adopted by the SPRING WG without a corresponding document that > explicitly modifies or updates the requirement being sent for consideration > by the relevant WG. > • Second, the document which makes such a modification or update will > need to be approved by the IETF working group which owns the existing > requirement before the SPRING document will be advanced out of the SPRING WG.
I don’t see why a single document can’t update both. IDs are allowed to update multiple documents, the changes need to be clear, but I don’t see why separate documents are required. Please explain. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
