Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Thu Mar 26 12:13:45 PDT 2020
Actually, I have generally found that our practices for document content
regarding updates are pretty good.
And to the degree they can be improved (I presume they can) that seems
quite separate from the problem that the proposers have asked about.
And it seems to me that the problem they have raised is one worth solving.
PS: And our document content for updating documents does not engender
the same kind of confusion and perpetual discussion.
On 3/26/2020 2:56 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I would appreciate if we would first or at least also work on guidance
> for what needs to go into an "update to RFCXXXX" section for new
> documents. Once we are clear about at the things that should be
> said (how prir doc is changed, what impact on interop thia
> results in, ..), it will be a lot easier to figure out if there are simple
> classifications that could go into metadata. Then its yet a third
> step whether we should try to expand/proliferate on our rather
> old metadata approach or go with newer approaches like what Mcr
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Joe, we all know that the formal words we use do not have the same meaning
>> that they do in English. Our standards are not, effectively, "requests for
>> comment". They are standards.
>> We also know by observation that other people have understood "Updates" in
>> ways that are different from how you understand it. Claiming that the
>> meaning as used for metadata on RFCs is "obvious to any English speaker" is
>> contradicted by the observable facts.
>> On 3/26/2020 1:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>>> ???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
>>>> 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.
>>> I do. Adding terms doesn???t make that more clear or useful. Updates means changes of any nature that do not replace the prior RFC in its entirety.
>>> If that isn???t obvious to any English speaker, then these nuanced other terms that subdivide that category further definitely will not help.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest