On Sat., 20 Jul. 2019, 08:32 Nico Williams, <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 04:40:14PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:57 PM john heasley <heas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Please also see 7540 appendix A - 11 pages - that should not exist. it
> > belongs in a LD. the appendix is incomplete now, it is not specific to
> > 7540, ....
>
> oh good ${diety} wtf :( why would this have been encoded here?
Probably because it was a convenient vehicle for issuing that advice.
For what it's worth, I want to undo a similar thing with RFC 8089 -- split out the appendices to non-standards-track, informational, easy to update guidance documents. They're the parts people really want standardisation on, and having *something* to point at, even if it's not rigorous or with consensus, is better than everyone going their own way.
Cheers
--
Matthew Kerwin
