( Clarifying question(s) ) On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 03:55:23 +0000, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > This draft is marked with an "Updates:" relationship to RFC 6486 both in > the document header and in the shepherd writeup. But the actual contents > of the document contain substantial portions of text that are identical to > RFC 6486, as would be expected from a "bis" document (per the draft name) > that would replace entirely the original RFC; that relationship is > typically indicated by an "Obsoletes:" relationship rather than "Updates:". It sounds like you are saying; "Hey, you included a ton of 'copy/paste' text in this -bis, stylistically/historically people only put in the -bis the CHANGED text, and whatever is required to link it into the original" I have no idea about this... but does it matter? I mean, won't the -bis just be the original with the 'new' content stitched into it properly? > Also, I would recommend including a "changes since RFC 6486" section that > motivates why the document is being updated or replaced. Ok, this doesn't seem bad :) I think most of the reasoning is stuck in mailing-list discussions like: "Hey, we did what you said, lots of sadness... how about we shave the yak a little differently so ops / theory / practice align better and leave us less balded yaks?" (and lost packets) I think we need to either re-engage the author(s) or pawn this off on the sekret-pen-holder, provided we can provide some linkage text. thanks! -chris -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
