> On May 20, 2022, at 1:46 AM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I've added a few changes to
> https://github.com/quicwg/quic-bit-grease/pull/26 which will be on top of the
> ones in https://github.com/quicwg/quic-bit-grease/pull/25 (which was in
> response to Russ).
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2022, at 10:21, Scott Bradner via Datatracker wrote:
>> Since this document proposes a change in the way QUIC packets are created and
>> processed it would seem logical for this document be listed as updating RFC
>> 9000. If this is the case then the document header and introduction need to
>> be
>> changed.
>
> I don't think that this is necessary. This fits within QUIC's extension
> model in that you don't need to read and understand this document in order to
> correctly implement RFC 9000. I know that the definition of "updates" is
> contested, but that's the definition I've applied here.
seems to me that having "updated by" in the RFC index makes it more likely that
an implementer will discover quic-bit-grease
the IETF has a long standing problem with implementors understating what RFCs
are needed to be implemented when
implementing a protocol (TCP is a good example - RFC 7414 was done to provide a
roadmap) - anything that helps
implementors know"what QUIC is" has to be a good idea
but, since bits are cheap, I do not understand the objection to making things
clearer - i.e. the question is not "is this necessary" but
"is this useful"
Scott
