mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Thu Mar 26 10:10:45 PDT 2020
(I always listen when Joel speaks, he rarely speaks for fun)
Joel M. Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> The problem was to my mind very clearly stated. We burn person-hours
> figuring out what we mean each time any document gets tagged this way.
I agree strongly with this as the problem statement.
> We could make up new terms, and try to specify more clearly their meaning.
> We then document that older documents used "updates" with a range of
> meanings, and newer documents use "foo" and "bar" with the following
> definitions that the community (presumably) has agreed and which are more
> clear. (Nothing is perfect, it is human language.) That is, as I understand
> it, what the document in front of us attempts to start.
There is a further choice which there wasn't time/place to talk about
yesterday. I would like WGs that have the time, to be able to go back and
clarify what their Updates actually mean.
If we are going to do a survey, we basically need to do that *anyway*.
> I am sure that there are other choices. (We are much too clever.) But I
> would prefer not to stick my head in the sand and pretend something that
> regularly causes this much confusion is just fine.
(We could have a moritorium on the IESG talking about Updates.)
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest