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

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Thu Mar 26 10:14:42 PDT 2020


On Mar 25, 2020, at 8:40 PM, 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. We want the relationship tags, so we can find things.  But our current "updates" tag has multiple meanings, so people get very confused.

Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:
    > Any of the proposed new tags arguably applies to many different
    > things. What’s the difference between extends and changes? When does a
    > change affect compatibility - only when it causes a failure or when it
    > causes a change of any kind?

It's great that you agree that we have to stop wasting hours on this :-)

Your proposal:
    > The only solution to understanding how one doc updates another is a
    > *discussion* in that doc.

    > “Updates” means just that - it affects the base document in a way that
    > MIGHT be hazardous to ignore. That means you need to read the doc to
    > find out why, to what extent, and how that affects what you want to
    > do.

I wonder if you can recognize that this might not be the only way it has been
used in the past.  Maybe those uses were in error, but you've picked a
particular definition that wasn't always applied.

--
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/20200326/7e340130/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list