At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:41 -0500, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is frozen > as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point. I don't get the logic...an "update" can start immediately once such a draft new proposal is available. The update won't be formally completed until it gets some formal state like a standard track RFC, and it will take time, but that wouldn't necessarily mean a further work is "frozen"; it's not very clear to me what this term means in this context, but it's quite common development takes place while the spec is being discussed as a draft, and it's also not uncommon some commercial operators even start deploying it. On the other hand, even if we now agreed that rfc2460bis should explicitly allow such "further work", the discussion itself would take long and wouldn't be completed soon. But IMO it's irresponsible to leave the text ambiguous and let some other people misunderstand it, possibly even more casually and/or in the global Internet, for the comfort of some particular future work. I think we're now trying to help avoid the latest clarification in rfc2460bis to be interpreted as an "outright ban" of future updates while still trying to be responsible for the soundness of the global Internet. In my understanding Brian's additional text is one such attempt (I also proposed text in that sense at the time of WGLC, although it wasn't adopted in the end). If that text is still not enough we can discuss how to phrase it. And, while I suspect people who wanted to keep the ambiguity will never be satisfied with the result as long as the added clarification remains, I believe that's a reasonable compromise to achieve a balance between being responsible and not (unintentionally) discouraging future updates. -- JINMEI, Tatuya