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

Joseph Touch touch at strayalpha.com
Fri Mar 27 09:50:05 PDT 2020


+1

Less is more. If this sort of process change is sufficient, it seems a much less disruptive change than upending the currently very simple document marking set.

Joe

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:10 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> (wearing no hats, personal opinion only)
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> (We could have a moritorium on the IESG talking about Updates.)
> 
> Fully support this. The main reason the IESG talks about this a lot is because ADs question the use of the tag. In the absence of mutable documents and since we tried multiple times to see if there could be clarity in the community about what “updates” means and failed, we could just accept that it’s an unclear tag and stop discussing it. We could even document the moratorium in an IESG statement.
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list