Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yeah, I don't think enormously. This worked fine with the ID system.
> As I said, what would be helpful for big protocols like TLS, QUIC, etc.
> seems to me to be the ability to make "editorial" changes to the document
> post-publication. I scare-quote editorial because it would also include
> clarifying points that basically everyone agreed on but that could be
> misinterpreted and would impede interop if there were multiple
> interpretations.
I agree with your goal.
Maybe being able to have RFC5288.02 or RFC8446.02 would make it easier to get
through the rather long post-WGLC.
While we are pretty good at getting cross-area review now, and getting
security review early, I feel that there is still too much ("last minute")
IESG meddling^Wpush back. It's not that I don't appreciate much of what
gets fixed, I just wish it got fixed earlier in the process.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
