[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Rob Wilton (rwilton) rwilton at cisco.com
Wed Mar 25 16:12:37 PDT 2020

From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
Sent: 25 March 2020 22:41
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

What I was going to say in the queue:

Like mnot, I think Updated should mean "Amended". It may be worth it to change the term just to create awareness to tighten the meaning.
+1 to Updated meaning Amended, but I think that we could keep the tag name the same, but just specify exactly what its behaviour is.

But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these categories will encourage people to use them.
I like the idea of “Extends” but not “Extended By”.  I.e. I think that it is useful for an RFC to indicate which base spec it is extending, but I don’t think that the base spec needs to indicate which optional RFCs it has been extended by.

If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.
I see “Extends” as something different to Normative reference.


TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200325/86ab2455/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list