Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

In <0A1AC67E-26EE-4553-92FA-7FDC46685B37@nokia.com>, Lars Eggert wrote:

> ...
> 
> The unfortunate thing is that the IETF's running code has been
> different from what RFC2223 describes, at least to some degree even
> back then and certainly since. I other words, according to the
> definition in RFC2223, many more RFCs should have been updating
> RFC793 over the years, not to speak of other RFC/protocol families.
> 
> Lars

That's exactly what I personally feel and 'preach', also based on
feedback from networking practitioners not familar with the details
of the procedures within the IETF -- also our 'customers', isn't it?

Nevertheless, quit a couple of such "Updates" <--> "Updated by"
metadata relationships have been added to the RFC index
'after the fact', based on RFC Errata and less formal discussion,
and the last such addition I am aware of happened only a few weeks ago.

BTW:
 The personal copy of the RFC index I maintain contains additional
 tags like "eff. Updated by ...", "eff. Historic",  etc.
 [For anybody wanting to be assured, "eff." stands for "effectively".]

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm