Hi Wes, How much of RFC9157 is left over from whatever is being updated/obsoleted by this document? Would it not be nicer to simplify things and reduce the pointers back/forth between all these RFCs since 9157 is in turn updating 3 RFCs and one of them is RFC8624?
RFC8624 --> updated by --> RFC9157 | | updated by -> obsoleted by -> RFCXXX <- IOW why can't everything in RFC9157 be rolled into this document? Some food for thought for the authors and the WG ... Thanks, Ketan On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 2:17 AM Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes: > > Hi Ketan, > > Thanks for the feedback! Comment inline: > > > Also, do consider using this document as a complete replacement for 8624 > (since > > things are being moved from that doc into IANA?) and 9157 (since it is > about > > IANA). If this document continues to just "update" them, then we have a > > trifecta of documents (or may be there are more?). Do see if things > could be > > further simplified for the community that is going to use this work. > > We can't obsolete 9157 since it contains guidance beyond updating 8624. > But we can update it. > > > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
