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

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Wed Mar 25 16:24:51 PDT 2020

Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
significantly better than "Updated"

For example, in IP multicast, we have this bible document RFC1112,
where the rfc1112bis i would like to write (time perrmitting ;-)
would mostly consist of removing 50% of the doc which specifies 
what we would now call IGMPv1 - an obsolete protocol. To me,
this rfc1112bis would well be characterized with the word "Updated",
but not the word "Amended", because to me (non-native speaker),
"Amended" sound a bit like "there is more" (not a lot less).

Point 2: I am not sure the distinction between Amended and Extended is
going to work well, because i can esily see a single follow-up RFC
to do both. There may be one section, where a MUST statement
refers and changes behavior that existed in the reference RFC
and is therefore an "Amendment" MUST. Then there is a second
feature introducing a new feature, which for this RFC is a MUST,
so... how would i even distinguish these two MUST ? And it seems
that a single Amendment MUST "kills" 20 new MUSTs that are


On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:12:37PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> 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.
> [RW]
> +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.
> [RW]
> 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.
> [RW]
> I see ???Extends??? as something different to Normative reference.
> Regards,
> Rob
> TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.
> Martin

> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

tte at cs.fau.de

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list