[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: straw poll

To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: straw poll
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:53:04 +0100
Cc: Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>, ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302)



Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:00 PM -0400 5/13/09, Stephen Kent wrote:
>> Please indicate your support for
>> 	- new supercedes old
>> 	- new is a peer of old
> 
> "Supercedes" is not an IETF procedures verb, I believe. "Updates" and/or "obsoletes" are terms more commonly understood in the IETF, given that they appear at the top of RFCs.
> 
> For a document such as the ASN.1 modules document, "updates" would mean "adds the new module into the previous specification", similar to a new protocol extension updating the existing protocol. "Obsoletes" would mean "the new module replaces the module in the previous specification".
> 
> Do you maybe want to start the poll again (and, if so, might you make the subject line a bit more descriptive)?

Yeah - gotta say that the original mail confused me too so maybe
starting over would be good. OTOH, I'll be for "updates" and against
"obsoletes" in any case - I don't think we should require the
new ASN.1.

S.

> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 
>

References:
- straw poll
  - From: Stephen Kent
- Re: straw poll
  - From: Paul Hoffman

Prev by Date: Re: cert image I-D
Previous by thread: Re: straw poll
Next by thread: AD review comments for draft-ietf-pkix-rfc4055-update-01
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread