Hiya, On 17/07/2019 01:46, john heasley wrote: > Thus that BGP over TLS RFC does not need to be updated as TLS evolves or > TLS RFCs come/go, nor does it need to make recommendations about TLS > itself - something that the authors may not be qualified to comment about. That is already true. Simply refer to BCP195 instead of RFC7525 and you get that bit. I understand the desire for more quickly moving things but IMO changing too quickly also has downsides so I'm ok with RFC7525 being the latest instance of BCP195 and for that RFC needing to be updated or the BCP having another RFC added to it for TLS1.3 (hopefully in the not too distant). I'd be against github-hosted evolving, living or dying documents. Github is ok for drafts as we do now, but even today leads to too much off-list discussion and decision making in my experience. That said, I do like the idea of a WG nominating a draft (or set of drafts with additional commentary) as the current interop draft, but I think I'd be against such an artefact being a long-lived thing to which e.g. RFCs may normatively refer. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
