- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:43:01 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> Yeh, why is "that updates this document" there? Why do readers of >> this document have to know about means that are provided in other >> documents, such that "updates" is needed? > > We wanted to assure that any other way to establish reasonable assurances > had sufficient vetting, and that someone reading this spec could find all the > different ways to establish reasonable assurances. > > Any additional insights (hopefully in non-question form)? Hm, I'm assume that wasn't meant to be snarky, though it sounds it. I needed to ask the question in order to answer the original question. The way to assure the vetting is to say that they must be Standards Track. Experimental documents might or might not get sufficient vetting. The way to ensure that people who read this spec can find all the extensions is to make a registry. Extensions shouldn't generally be "updating" the original spec. So... You can decide how you think the vetting will be accomplished, but if you want it to be easy to find the new mechanisms, have this document set up a registry and say that new mechanisms MUST be registered there. Then there's no concern about any "updates" rules with respect to documents from other than Standards Track sources. b
Received on Saturday, 27 February 2016 16:43:28 UTC