On 5/9/19 5:25 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Leaving the reader with "Some [unspecified] portions of the text
have not been updated and do not meet current best practices for
documents published by the IETF", even if combined with
detailing each specific technique... that would not generally be
acceptable", just does not come up to the standard I think we
hope for in IETF technical specification RFCs.
I understand and have some sympathy for your position, but I don't
necessarily agree with it.
Given Martin's related feedback at
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3FUqzIyiYo82AFgBajy55eBz2kU>:
I would instead suggest that rather than requiring enumeration of all the "icky bits", we instead label what is updated and say that "everything else is left as is and might not reflect current best practice".
....I would curious what conclusion the two of you might reach if you
decided to spend significant face-to-face time discussing the topic.
I'll note that I similarly have some sympathy for (but also don't
necessarily agree with) Martin's position, and offered the current
proposal as a compromise between the two countervailing concerns that
you have respectively brought forth.
/a
