> On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:25 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm.. I really do not like specification “games” like this. If you cannot justify a MUST into RFC3315bis, then trying to circumvent the fact in another document (that does not update the RFC3315 or RFC3315bis) should not be a Standards Track document. I could accept this as a BCP or a like. > > Hm, then you are saying that every extension ever done to a protocol that, if it contains MUSTs, MUST update that protocol, even if implementations that support the extension can interoperate with implementations that do not and vice versa. What’s your basis for this? No. But in this case there are pieces of text that change specific places in the original document from SHOULDs to MUSTs, musts to MUSTs, and adds few pieces of new stuff, etc. Now how that in not updating? Changes or “extensions” like that would be nice to follow from the base document. - Jouni