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

Michael Richardson 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.

+1
(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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/e94b11e0/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list