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

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Wed Mar 25 16:39:58 PDT 2020


Btw: My example is not what i actually wanted to do, the 'bis'
of course typically means you have all the text and fully replace
the prior RFC. So let me correct the example:

if instead of a 'bis' document, one would do a
document that just has a sentence "sections X, Y, Z of reference
RFC are obsole and MUST NOT be implemented".

Thats what i think is an Update, but doesn't sound like an "Amendment"
to me.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:24:51AM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than "Updated"
> 
> For example, in IP multicast, we have this bible document RFC1112,
> where the rfc1112bis i would like to write (time perrmitting ;-)
> would mostly consist of removing 50% of the doc which specifies 
> what we would now call IGMPv1 - an obsolete protocol. To me,
> this rfc1112bis would well be characterized with the word "Updated",
> but not the word "Amended", because to me (non-native speaker),
> "Amended" sound a bit like "there is more" (not a lot less).
> 
> Point 2: I am not sure the distinction between Amended and Extended is
> going to work well, because i can esily see a single follow-up RFC
> to do both. There may be one section, where a MUST statement
> refers and changes behavior that existed in the reference RFC
> and is therefore an "Amendment" MUST. Then there is a second
> feature introducing a new feature, which for this RFC is a MUST,
> so... how would i even distinguish these two MUST ? And it seems
> that a single Amendment MUST "kills" 20 new MUSTs that are
> Extensions.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:12:37PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
> > Sent: 25 March 2020 22:41
> > To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > Subject: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
> > 
> > What I was going to say in the queue:
> > 
> > Like mnot, I think Updated should mean "Amended". It may be worth it to change the term just to create awareness to tighten the meaning.
> > [RW]
> > +1 to Updated meaning Amended, but I think that we could keep the tag name the same, but just specify exactly what its behaviour is.
> > 
> > But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these categories will encourage people to use them.
> > [RW]
> > I like the idea of ???Extends??? but not ???Extended By???.  I.e. I think that it is useful for an RFC to indicate which base spec it is extending, but I don???t think that the base spec needs to indicate which optional RFCs it has been extended by.
> > 
> > If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.
> > [RW]
> > I see ???Extends??? as something different to Normative reference.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> tte at cs.fau.de
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list