We debated the update tactic some months ago. It seemed whatever path we took, we might be criticized but we had to pick one. This is very nearly the final document in that long list, so it is interesting that its really only one of the last few to see this issue raised. Of course it seems quite possible we'll now spend more time debating it on email lists that it'd take to produce the document updates. ;-)
JL
On 10/20/18, 6:45 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Scott O. Bradner" <iasa20-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
sure seems a lot more efficient to just have one short RFC instead of a bunch of RFCs that wind
up changing well known RFC #s for almost no meaningful changes - i
(never mind having to change training documents to point to the changed RFC numbers)
Scott
