> On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:58 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > > Okay, I see your point. But suppose the document were changed so that rather than "updating" the document as you suggest, it simply referenced the sections in question and then made the SHOULDs into MUSTs that way? Wouldn't that mean "implementations of this extension MUST," and wouldn't that be perfectly reasonable? > I would still argue that it updates specifically if the document here is going to be standards track. If this document here would be more of a recommendation e.g., BCP I would be fine without the “updating” part (as I remember the MUST for IPsec in RFC3315bis was not endorsed by the WG). - Jouni