Re-, That's fair. This is supposed to be fixed in the future with "Extends/Extended by" tag in draft-kuehlewind-update-tag. I'm afraid that we can't do much for hop-limit. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : core [mailto:core-bounces@xxxxxxxx] De la part de Scott O. Bradner > Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2019 14:33 > À : Carsten Bormann > Cc : draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@xxxxxxxx; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; > ietf@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05 > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
