+1 !
That is what UTA does to 'security' RFCs in majority of cases, BTW.
Orit.
_____________________________
From: Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org<mailto:barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: wrt draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs
To: =JeffH
<jeff(_dot_)hodges(_at_)kingsmountain(_dot_)com<mailto:jeff(_dot_)hodges(_at_)kingsmountain(_dot_)com>>
Cc: IETF Discussion List
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
<uta(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:uta(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
<draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
<uta-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:uta-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
This seems to me to be clearly "updating" or "profiling" RFC6125 normative
language, in the specific email use case.
Profiling it for email, yes. Why should that make it *update* the
document that specifies the general process? Profiles need to
normatively reference what they profile, but not the other way 'round.
Barry