Thanks Matt, I've written up this consensus as a PR: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/124 Let me know if I'm good to merge and submit a revised draft.
David On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:44 PM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > To summarize the outcome, while the usage of the "Updates" tag across the > IETF is generally not very consistent, the chairs believe that there is > consensus for adding the "Updates" tag for RFC 8999, but not for RFC 9000, > as the implications and precedent-setting of the latter are not as clear. > > Best, > Matt Joras > On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:48 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>
