Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 18:43:55 PDT 2020
On 27-Mar-20 06:44, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> You and the proponents should feel free to do so. However, at present, the situation is that this proposal doesn't have anything like consensus (and yes, that's because a number of us are of the opinion that no action is needed) and so the burden on the proponents is to try to build that.
It doesn't have consensus, but the question (when it gets to Last Call) is whether it has rough consensus.
fwiw I agree that there is a manifest problem with ambiguous use of Updates and I think that the proposed solution is good.
On 26-Mar-20 11:41, Martin Duke wrote:
> But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references before the text starts.
I very much doubt it. At the moment RFC793 shows:
"Updated by: 1122, 3168, 6093, 6528"
Whether those are amendments or extensions I don't know. Certainly it's incomplete; for example RFC7474 amends RFC793. And so what anyway? If an important RFC like 793 is amended or extended by 50 RFCs, that should definitely be in the metadata.
"See Also" would rarely be needed, I think, and its usage would be curated
by the IESG.
More information about the rfc-interest