Ben, Thanks for your time. > The question of compliance came up in internal IESG discussion. > > I think that whenever “compliance” comes up in discussion, we are off-mission. > RFCs exist to enable interoperability. Whether an implementation complies with > an RFC is a red herring; what matters is if it interoperates with other > implementations. So when you write in the proposed statement... >> In particular, the headers do not, by themselves, >> imply a normative change to the updated RFC, nor do they, by themselves, imply >> that implementers must implement the updating RFC to continue to comply with >> the updated one. .... is this off-mission or a red herring? > From that perspective, I think questions about whether an > implementation continues to “comply” are irrelevant. Why put something irrelevant in your proposed statement? Thanks, Adrian
