[core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 23 June 2022 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3B9C15AD41 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0WiCzJA94QPA for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E9FC159490 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F9B38E07 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HlDaVl994bLu for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC4C38CEA for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1656004511; bh=yXt5Ep8yLh/JpkRhIXF6GInnOMU69oRUKF+Tryfqgws=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=YSkSQvtxjnRPqYc4mNhysvooPzCBfZpDK2ZZGK56NRON+IfUTXfsSYSCTrxAtSptQ PJJT3f3lHV3EV2gHFO33ifRjP23JxODNz9AwJMEmqvM4f14G0YfBoIJ3fc8fUQ+kOO F1yj806rZiVjFFld8uDdQZZ3cLW4KtI0z4jEhl4RLAOT4G81cvBjcztqlwcuuT4H/k 3TfHVEBBbDG8QFb/L66LzgFPPTTL0WlNm0LqdHsXez+frgUnjmdbtia52dCXDgdeJC vevk902ujHN4H0maA8jVgJqFdAQGE1wBvo6FDR+x2LJoiVyiEU8EWc8QFvNZSQDZFF 6PYXcQVQLiYAw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826E6118 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: core@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:58:56 -0400
Message-ID: <20040.1656003536@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/O7tH7KgjAMZQsLPIn2D0_qzH694>
Subject: [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:59:03 -0000
I was just updating some documentation for a CoAP library. Replacing I-D names with RFCs. Why doesn't RFC9177 Update (as in "See Also") RFC7959? RFC7959:Blockwise Transfer https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959 RFC9177:Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting Robust Transmission https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9177 -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959 Michael Richardson
- Re: [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959 Carsten Bormann