Stephen, On 02/23/2016 03:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 23/02/16 10:59, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and >> deserves a corresponding "update tag". > > FWIW, I've no opinion here but please be aware that different working > definitions of the "updates" relationship are concurrently in use in > different bits of the IETF. For some, it means "you really need to > read this" for others its "a new implementer of the old thing really > needs to also include the new code" and those aren't always the same. > There are probably other not-unreasonable meanings one could come up > with too. I'd not get hung up on it generally myself. Thanks for the note, and I agree with your view. That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on *something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when a "Updates" tag is warranted or not) Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492