> On May 20, 2022, at 1:46 AM, Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback Scott. I've added a few changes to https://github.com/quicwg/quic-bit-grease/pull/26 which will be on top of the ones in https://github.com/quicwg/quic-bit-grease/pull/25 (which was in response to Russ). > > On Fri, May 20, 2022, at 10:21, Scott Bradner via Datatracker wrote: >> Since this document proposes a change in the way QUIC packets are created and >> processed it would seem logical for this document be listed as updating RFC >> 9000. If this is the case then the document header and introduction need to be >> changed. > > I don't think that this is necessary. This fits within QUIC's extension model in that you don't need to read and understand this document in order to correctly implement RFC 9000. I know that the definition of "updates" is contested, but that's the definition I've applied here. seems to me that having "updated by" in the RFC index makes it more likely that an implementer will discover quic-bit-grease the IETF has a long standing problem with implementors understating what RFCs are needed to be implemented when implementing a protocol (TCP is a good example - RFC 7414 was done to provide a roadmap) - anything that helps implementors know"what QUIC is" has to be a good idea but, since bits are cheap, I do not understand the objection to making things clearer - i.e. the question is not "is this necessary" but "is this useful" Scott -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
