On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Though I don't much mind what ultimate form the operational > requirements for TLSA "2 ? [12]" take, I'd strongly prefer to see > this discussed in 6698 itself, rather than a new operational RFC. > A separate RFC will be easily missed, and the operational requirement > will be less well publicized. RFC 6698 is published. No bits in it can change. RFC's *never* change. If there are errors, an erratum can be filed. The chance of a developer seeing an erratum is near zero. This WG can write an RFC that updates RFC 6698; that new RFC would contain new information, such as operational guidance. Any individual can write an individually-produced RFC with operational guidance. The chance of a developer seeing the update of the RFC, or a separate RFC, is *much* higher than of them seeing the erratum. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
