Hi folks, Gentle reminder that this call is still running for a few more days. Please comment if you have an opinion.
Cheers Lucas On Sun, 11 Sept 2022, 00:49 Lucas Pardue, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello QUIC WG, > > As part of the AD review of the Version Negotiation draft [1], the > question was raised about whether it should update RFC 9000; see issue #115 > [2]. As a reminder, an RFC can include an "Updates" tag that refers to > another target RFC, the target in turn will receive an "Updated by" tag. > > Generally, the use of and meaning of the Updates tag can be ambiguous. > There is no blanket rule to determine if an Updates tag is required for > RFCs that extend QUIC. For example, we didn't add one for QUIC bit grease > [3]. > > Our responsible AD, Zahed, has asked for a consensus call to determine > whether the Version Negotiation draft should include an Updates tag or not. > This is the start of a two week consensus call, it will conclude on > 2022-09-24, End of Day, Anywhere on Earth. > > Please respond on the issue directly [2], or in response to this email. > > Cheers, > Lucas > On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs > > > > [1] - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-09 > [2] - https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/115 > [3] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9287.html >
