Re: An informational+individual RFC for migrating from Digest?

Hi all,

thanks for your time and sorry for bringing again the thread, but I had to
:)

Have a nice day,
R:

Il giorno mar 22 mar 2022 alle ore 22:25 Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> ha
scritto:

> Another option, if this is just a migration guide for implementations, is
> to write something up as a blog post / online article / wiki. This could be
> something that would helpful to the implementers you’re concerned about,
> and also clearly point to the new standard as the official definition of
> the protocol.
>
> I agree with Mark that there shouldn’t be an Internet Draft / RFC for
> this.
>
> Tommy
>
> > On Mar 22, 2022, at 2:19 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roberto,
> >
> > My personal .02 - publishing this on the Independent stream will cause
> confusion, because the RFC Series will be seeming to recommend two paths
> forward at the same time. We discussed the status of the old constructs
> extensively and came to consensus that the best thing to do was to
> encourage uniform use of the new constructs' semantics and syntax
> consistently.
> >
> > I think that the best thing to do is wait and see how the new
> specification is taken up -- that will take some time, of course.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Mar 2022, at 11:02 pm, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Mark & co,
> >>
> >> since the new Digest introduced Structured Fields,
> >> and the new syntax is not backward compatible,
> >> it would be helpful for implementers to be guided in the transition.
> >>
> >> iiuc this detailed guide is out of scope
> >> for a standard RFC like this one.
> >> Do you think that an individual, informative one
> >> could be a better place for this kind of information?
> >>
> >> Have a nice day,
> >> R.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
>