On Sep 27, 2019, at 14:32, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> 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 True. For a while, we had a “roadmap” draft for CoRE (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-core-roadmap-05 was the last update); maybe it’s time to resurrect this and provide a big picture for what is out there now and how it should be used. (Now, do I get a “roadmapped-by” tag on the original RFC?) Grüße, Carsten
