Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

On 02/23/2016 03:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/02/16 10:59, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and
>> deserves a corresponding "update tag".
> 
> FWIW, I've no opinion here but please be aware that different working
> definitions of the "updates" relationship are concurrently in use in
> different bits of the IETF. For some, it means "you really need to
> read this" for others its "a new implementer of the old thing really
> needs to also include the new code" and those aren't always the same.
> There are probably other not-unreasonable meanings one could come up
> with too. I'd not get hung up on it generally myself.

Thanks for the note, and I agree with your view.

That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on
*something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be
clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when
a "Updates" tag is warranted or not)

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492