On 6/7/2019 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> As far as I can see, 8540 was produced by the tsvwg, and went through IETF
> process. Yes, it's informational, rather than standards track ("Updates"),
> but that seems somewhat immaterial to me.
I have read both John's draft and RFC 8450. John makes essentially two
points: that informational documents should not "informally" update
standard track documents, and that structuring a document as a catalog
of erratas and updates makes for hard to read text.
I would agree with John on the first point. The document status is
important. RFC 8450 should have been published in the standard track,
and it should have formally updated RFC 4960. If it had, people reading
4960 would immediately notice the "updated by" reference, but currently
they don't.
As for the second point, I think it a classic trade-off between
timeliness and quality. This is best judged by the WG and the AD.
-- Christian Huitema
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
