[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft
cabo at tzi.org
Sat Feb 29 06:27:55 PST 2020
>> We would need boilerplate in each RFC that includes potential future amendments.
> I don't understand how that would work, and it's hard to see how you could reason about it.
RFCs are textually immutable. We solve the problem by adding references to mutable information the RFC, e.g. to IANA registries: this keeps the text immutable, but allows us to add to the content later.
Obviously, a claim to conformance to any RFC could not include future values from that registry.
By adding to each RFC a reference to (a “registry”, except that it would not be an IANA registry) of documents that must be read with the that document, we could extend this mechanism to other changes. We would need to make it explicit that any claim to conformance would need to include a date, and would imply adding amendments published at that date to the document conformance to which is claimed to.
(I’m not advocating this, I’m just saying how this could be done.
Disadvantage: Can not be done with RFCs published before this change.)
More information about the rfc-interest