[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft
ekr at rtfm.com
Sat Feb 29 06:29:24 PST 2020
My initial comment about the first rule of holes seems to apply doubly to
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:27 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> wrote:
> >> We would need boilerplate in each RFC that includes potential future
> > 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.)
> Grüße, Carsten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest