Hi Francesca, On 2022-07-04, at 18:06, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Updates to this document need to be clear about what is being altered, This is getting into the “brush your teeth” twilight zone. > and ought not discard this appendix without publishing it as a separate document. (As I mentioned in the github issue, we actually did this when we updated RFC 7049 to RFC 8949. Tag 35 remains defined in RFC 7049, which as the CBOR specification is obsoleted by RFC 8949. This is all transparent via the tag registry, which is why the existing text proposal points to it. Yes, we discussed this quite a bit as a WG.) I don’t think this document *can* prevent us from at some point deciding we want to stop updating Tag 38 and address its use cases by something shiny and new — even if this seems a bit far-fetched now. It certainly shouldn’t try to. So half of this addition isn’t needed, and the other half isn’t quite the right recommendation about the evolution of this document. Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
