Eric Gray wrote:
The issue I have with either formulation is that BCP 32
currently means "RFC 2606 or its successors" - hence either
formulation is redundant.
+1 The ID-checklist can reference RFC 2606, and updating
it to 2606bis later is no obstacle. That is no general
recipe: For an RFC 4646 vs. BCP 47 reference there are
some technical details to consider, especially if those
references are in a stable non-IETF document.
But IMO the "checklist" and "BCP 32" are both supposed to
be harmless documents, and not designed to help with the
in various ways special 2821bis case.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf