[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag comments

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Wed Mar 25 15:23:25 PDT 2020


I like to solve the problem. I am not sure the proposed solution is
sufficient though.

On the nitpicking style, i am not sure that the distinction of
New MUST -> Amends New "optional" is a good way to define
the distinctions:

If i was an operator, i would primarily like to understand the
interoperability effects. We the new document be expected to
interoperate in all circumstances with the old version RFC ?
Security Amendmends certainly will the need option to kill
backward compatibility (old RFC had a now broken security scheme).

I would feel a lot easier to conclude what would need to be
done if there was a collection of different example "use cases",
and challenge the community to come up with new "use cases" where
the proposed solution does not work well enough.

I "feel" that it would be better not to try to solve our issues
nly with as few as possible tags, but also ponder what a good
amendment/extensions text in an RFC should look like.
E.g.: separate section summarising "Changes" over the prior
RFC is IMHO a good approach.

"This rfc replaces the following text in prior RFC with the
text outlined in section xx of this rfc. This impacts
interoperability as follows".

Just an example.

Cheers
    Toerless


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list