Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> writes: > *> FWIW, I don't think we want to start bouncing specs because they > *> don't pay homage - in this case all the similarities are probably > *> the only obvious ways to add authorization tokens to a TLS > *> handshake. Such downrefs to dead documents would anyway add yet > *> more cruft to the RFC process, so let's not. > *> > *> S. > *> > > s/cruft/integrity/ On the general I think I agree with Stephen. While it's important to give credit to direct antecedents to one's work, this isn't academic publishing or a patent application and I don't think it's necessary to cite all prior or related work, especially if the new work is not in any way derived from the old. On the particular point of this draft, since the reason that it's being re-LCed is that there are newly disclosed IPR issues, it might be nice to be clear on what portions are isomorphic to something that precedes the IPR filing so a reference might be appropriate. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf