Everybody's correct, IMHO. We need to have a general explanation of
what "updates" (and "obsoletes", but that's simpler) means that will
apply to all RFCs, and we need specific guidance within the standards
track in particular.
Regards
Brian
On 16/09/2016 05:56, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I agree that it would be good if those streams paid attention to the
discussion. It would be particularly good if they made the same choices
about meaning.
But due to our history, it seems to me that the decision to do that is
up to each stream. And thus the IETF having the discussion is helpful.
I would hope that if the IAB or IRTF (or ISE) have observations about
the approaches, the IETF would pay attention to that.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/15/16 1:49 PM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
From the RFC Editor perspective, I’m hoping that this document will
touch on more than just the IETF stream. Both the IAB and the
Independent Submissions streams (but not the IRTF stream) contain
Updates/Obsoletes. Not many, but they do exist and should be accounted for.
-Heather
On September 15, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern
(jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com <mailto:jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>)
wrote:
As the draft is probably about IETF process, not RFC Editor rules, I
would think that ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org would be the venue for discussing
the
draft, unless Jari thinks it needs a separate list (which I doubt).
Yours,
Joel
On 9/15/16 8:58 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I noticed that as well in the announcement. The proper place to discuss
this draft is most probably rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
<mailto:rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org> .
Cheers,
Andy
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> Note to Readers
>
> This draft should be discussed on the wgchairs mailing list [1].
Um, no. That's a closed list.
Regards
Brian
--
Heather Flanagan
RFC Series Editor