On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:25 PM, jouni.nospam
<jouni(_dot_)nospam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hmm.. I really do not like specification “games” like this. If you cannot
justify a MUST into RFC3315bis, then trying to circumvent the fact in
another document (that does not update the RFC3315 or RFC3315bis) should not
be a Standards Track document. I could accept this as a BCP or a like.
Hm, then you are saying that every extension ever done to a protocol that, if
it contains MUSTs, MUST update that protocol, even if implementations that
support the extension can interoperate with implementations that do not and
vice versa. What’s your basis for this?
No. But in this case there are pieces of text that change specific places in
the original document from SHOULDs to MUSTs, musts to MUSTs, and adds few
pieces of new stuff, etc. Now how that in not updating? Changes or “extensions”
like that would be nice to follow from the base document.
- Jouni