[Trans] 6962bis and signed_certificate_timestamp issue

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

This issue is still open:

 	TLS 1.3 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446) has several mentions of
 	the RFC6962 signed_certificate_timestamp TLS extension.  Since 6962-bis
 	intends to obsolete RFC6962 and replace signed_certificate_timestamp
 	with a new TLS extension (transparency_info), should we also add a
 	sentence to the 6962-bis Abstract along these lines...
 	   "This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
 	    and 1.3 implementations."
 	?

 	Do we even need to mark 6962-bis as Updating RFC8446?

 	(Can an Experimental RFC update a Standards Track RFC?)