> On Sep 27, 2019, at 8:24 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > . Generally, we don’t use “updates” for specifications that merely exercise an extension point, so I don’t think hop-limit “updates” RFC 7252, but the “updates” label is in active discussion already anyway. a major advantage of listing something like this as an update is that the implementor will know about it - if there is no hint in the index entry for the old RFC that there is a related RFC it would be very easy to overlook Scott
