[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft

Suresh Krishnan suresh.krishnan at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 15:52:23 PST 2020

Now with a link to the draft :-)



> On Feb 26, 2020, at 4:07 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  Mirja and I wrote a draft defining new tags for defining relations between RFCs. One of the ongoing areas of confusion within the RFC Series is when and how RFCs interact with each other. What does it mean to have one document update another? Is information being added, or is existing information being changed? 
> Asking the question of how to indicate relationships in the metadata for the documents has come up a few times (one example: “Subject: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header” [0]), though generally in the context of IETF stream documents only. When we wrote the draft we were aiming it solely for use in the IETF Stream but we realized it might have wider applicability.
> We would ideally like to see relationships between RFCs more clearly defined in such a way as to apply regardless of document stream. We have introduced this draft already to the stream managers of the IAB, the IRTF and the Independent streams and would like to hear what the community thinks about this proposal. Thanks to everyone on rfc-i who as already commented. We would love to get some feedback specifically about but not limited to
> * Do you have any concerns about the guidance as proposed in this draft? 
> * Do you have any concerns about doing this series’ wide?
> Regards
> Suresh and Mirja
> NOTE: Even though we are both sitting members of the IESG, we have written this draft solely as members of the community and we will no longer be IESG members if and when this draft progresses :-)
> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list