[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Fri Feb 28 06:23:38 PST 2020


At present, I am not in favor of these changes.

We already spend quite a bit of time debating which tags should apply when
compared to the (IMO marginal) value of these tags, and this seems likely
to make that worse.

The "amended" tag in particular seems like a workaround for our refusal to
simply update RFCs when they are wrong. The first rule of holes to stop
digging.

-Ekr


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:52 PM Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Now with a link to the draft :-)
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-01
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
>
> > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200228/ed7ed054/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list