I agree with Lars. If we start a separate doc and then it becomes clear that it would be better as a 9000bis, we can always make that call later, just like we decided HTTP over QUIC should be called HTTP/3.
Thanks, Ian On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:59 AM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mar 27, 2025, at 06:19, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > not Martin, but that won't stop me from responding :-) > > > Do you have any opinion on whether the evolution of the text in RFC 9000 > would best be done in the form of a 9000bis, or as text in a new document > (that updates RFC 9000), or some other approach? > > I'd hesitate to open up 9000bis for this, unless we have a host of other > fixes/changes we want to make to 9000. > > A separate new doc that updates 9000 seems like a lighter-weight approach. > > Thanks, > Lars > >
