Stephen,
On 02/23/2016 03:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 23/02/16 10:59, Fernando Gont wrote:
I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and
deserves a corresponding "update tag".
FWIW, I've no opinion here but please be aware that different working
definitions of the "updates" relationship are concurrently in use in
different bits of the IETF. For some, it means "you really need to
read this" for others its "a new implementer of the old thing really
needs to also include the new code" and those aren't always the same.
There are probably other not-unreasonable meanings one could come up
with too. I'd not get hung up on it generally myself.
Thanks for the note, and I agree with your view.
That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on
*something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be
clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when
a "Updates" tag is warranted or not)
Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492