C. M. Heard wrote: > The draft is intended to do the same thing for RFC 4181 > that RFC 4748 did for RFC 3978. Comments, if any, should > be directed to <ietf@xxxxxxxx>. Now that you ask, your patches are straight forward, so why not simply apply them and publish a complete new 4181bis ? Patchwork RFCs are IMO ugly. RFC 4748 was a special case, it was urgent, there was a competing 3978bis draft, and the IPR WG intends to update RFC 3978 anyway, soon. A somewhat radical proposal: If your patch is approved you could transform it into a complete 4181bis in AUTH48, and let that obsolete 4181. Or is the 4181 situation exacly as for 4748 + 3978 ? Your patch might be incomplete, chapter 3.7, appendix A, and the normative references mention 3978 instead of 3978 + 4748. Especially appendix A point 7 should now point to RFC 4748. IIRC RFC 3979 was also patched recently, but apparently it's still waiting for its RFC number, or I confuse some patches. It's tempting to use this trick, I considered a simple patch for an obscure detail in RFC 4409 8.1. But for readers (or for authors trying to get their references right) it's ugly. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf