Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:42:17 +0000,
Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > My mental model is that a bis document essentially incorporates errata
> > and minor changes to a previous RFC. But this doesn't seem whre we want
> > to go here.
>
> I think the purpose and spirit are very similar though, just with a few years of extra experience.

Even if not, I don't think a bis document can't do anything beyond
incorporating errata and minor changes.  The revised version of the
advanced socket API (now published as RFC3542) was named
draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis and changed the RFC2292 API so
substantially, many of which are completely new or backwarnd
incompatible.  That's an old example that I just happen to be involved
with, but I believe there are newer such examples.

In some cases a bis draft is actually really conservative, e.g., when
it intends to elevate the status of the original RFC, but in my
understanding there's no rule that other kinds of update can't have a
bis name.

BTW, I don't have a strong opinion on how to name the draft in
question per se.  But if I were to choice, I'd actually use
'rfc4941bis', since it would help tell people looking at RFC4941 the
existence of an update attempt.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya