It can be the same document. We could not find wording that made it
clear that the update had to be approved by the owning WG, and that
SPRING approval would be conditional on such. And still alow for them
being the same or different documents.
On the other hand, the usual practice has been to separate them as it
makes for cleaner discussions.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/20/2021 12:49 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Jim, Joel & Bruno,
On Mar 16, 2021, at 8:42 AM, James Guichard <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear WG:
A quick note from the chairs for clarity with regards to
draft-srcomdt-spring-compression and as a matter of process for future
unrelated documents.
With regard to section 5.2 of draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05,
the chairs note that this is primarily an IETF process issue, not a technical
issue about solutions. The chairs also remind people of two aspects of IETF
process:
• First, an IETF draft which modifies an existing PS or BCP requirement
will not be adopted by the SPRING WG without a corresponding document that
explicitly modifies or updates the requirement being sent for consideration by
the relevant WG.
• Second, the document which makes such a modification or update will
need to be approved by the IETF working group which owns the existing
requirement before the SPRING document will be advanced out of the SPRING WG.
I don’t see why a single document can’t update both. IDs are allowed to
update multiple documents, the changes need to be clear, but I don’t see why
separate documents are required. Please explain.
Bob
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
