On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:58 PM, jouni.nospam
<jouni(_dot_)nospam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Okay, I see your point. But suppose the document were changed so that
rather than "updating" the document as you suggest, it simply referenced the
sections in question and then made the SHOULDs into MUSTs that way?
Wouldn't that mean "implementations of this extension MUST," and wouldn't
that be perfectly reasonable?
I would still argue that it updates specifically if the document here is going
to be standards track. If this document here would be more of a recommendation
e.g., BCP I would be fine without the “updating” part (as I remember the MUST
for IPsec in RFC3315bis was not endorsed by the WG).
- Jouni