[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com
Thu Jun 25 08:46:39 PDT 2015

--On Thursday, June 25, 2015 17:32 +0200 Julian Reschke
<julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2015-06-25 17:12, John C Klensin wrote:
>> ...
>> Remember that we fairly often make rather significant changes
>> to details post-last-call and that those changes often don't
>> appear in I-Ds, especially not with justification and
>> explanation.
>  > ...
> That's a problem. I've argued many times that any changes made
> during IESG evaluation or during AUTH48 which are not strictly
> editorial should require a new Internet Draft to be posted.

Even that isn't sufficient if one were worried about the
historical record rather than [merely] an opportunity for WG
review.  To accomplish the historical/ tracking goal on
post-IETF LC documents, you would need to be very careful to
record at whose request changes were made and why.  You would
also need to either figure out how to make "strictly editorial"
an objective measure when, in practice, there are many
subjective cases.  For example, it is common for the RFC Editor
to suggest small changes/ corrections in wording that turn out
of have subtle effects on meaning.  Usually, we trust authors
and the RFC Editor staff to decide whether those effects are
significant or not, but, if we were to adopt a firm rule, we
would end up with almost every I-D being reposted in nearly-RFC
form prior to the RFC being posted and that would almost
certainly use up a lot of resources, create a new vector for
attacks on the system, and have with very infrequent positive

That said, I have also argued that we should be posting
late-change I-Ds much more often and we should almost always
prefer such postings to IESG "RFC Editor notes".  But, as to
turning it into a firm rule, I much prefer allowing authors, the
IESG, and the RFC Editor to exercise discretion to having to
sort out a rule and the inevitable list of complex exceptions.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list