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

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Thu Mar 26 10:25:52 PDT 2020


On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:03 AM Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 12:53 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> - Stop using Updates or any other such metadata entirely
> - Replace Updates with "See Also" and have it explicitly have no semantics
> at all
>
>
> Another solution that would work: stop publishing RFCs.  :)
>

> I really don’t see what the objection to this is.  If it works, we win.
> If it doesn’t work, I don’t think we’re any worse off.  You assume that
> having three types will triple the rehashing, but there’s no real
> justification for that assumption. Does a hash table make things slower?
> This is sort of analogous: instead of one bucket, you have multiple
> buckets, each with a clearly defined meaning.  Even if it doesn’t
> dramatically improve things, it probably won’t make them significantly
> worse.
>

As I said in my initial mail, the first rule of holes is "stop digging".

-Ekr


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/f1e5ea7c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list