Re: [TLS] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 07/10/2019 18:29, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> we can't "UPDATE" an I-D.
>
> Not true. If you need to refer to something that's been IESG-approved but
> still in the RFC queue, you can leave a note for the RFC editor to update
> the reference to the eventual RFC number.

That would be an UPDATE on the eventual RFC and not on the
I-D. And in this case, it'd IMO not be a good plan as a) the
relevant WG didn't want that, b) the I-D in question is part
of a mega-cluster, so any dependency on it (as you suggest)
risks loadsa delay if the cluster doesn't get unstuck, which
can happen and c) our draft already stretches the header
enough updating 85 RFCs - trying to add an I-D to that list
would break tools and cause much pointless process-angst.

Mostly (a) is the reason to not do it though. If you want
to disagree with (a), then the right list for that would be
the rtcweb list I guess, even though the WG is now concluded
(which could, I guess, be (d);-)

Overall, the cost isn't worth the benefit IMO.

Cheers,
S.