touch at strayalpha.com
Thu Mar 26 13:21:16 PDT 2020
All true but then all reasons why nuanced definitions to dive into overlapping sub cases isn’t helpful.
A single word or phrase is never enough.
> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:45 AM, Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> Joe, we all know that the formal words we use do not ahve 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.
More information about the rfc-interest