My general view is that we should treat this RFC as replacing 8446 and so whatever should have appeared in 8446 is what should appear here.
I'm certainly open to the argument that 8446 got these headers wrong, and it's not clear to me that there is a right answer. -Ekr On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > On May 30, 2025, at 12:08, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > I'm certainly not here to defend the distinctions between Updates and > Obsoletes, etc. > > Ah yeah, I remember those discussions … > > The 8422 change is new to RFC 8446bis, so we need to address that now. > > Remove the reference. > > > Since RFC 8446 updated four RFCs, 5705, 6066, 7627, 8422, and this one > obsoletes RFC 8446 should we just drop Updates column entirely? NOTE: This > was a comment I got from the IESG on -rfc8447bis; granted its and updated > and not an obsoletes. > > spt > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
