touch at strayalpha.com
Wed Mar 25 16:46:36 PDT 2020
> On Mar 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte at cs.fau.de> wrote:
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than “Updated"
I’d start by asking that speaker to explain amended, emended, and updated.
Nuanced speakers will appreciate the difference; for most, IMO, “updated” covers everything needed and is much more commonly used. That helps for non-native speakers.
> 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).
Amended can mean “puts right” or “updates” too. The 18th Amendment (literally) to the US constitution removed the right to manufacture and consume alcohol; the 21st Amendment restored it.
In a sense, the first removed a right by adding a restriction, the second restored a right by undoing the first one in its entirety. Both are amendments, both figuratively and by name.
> 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
All good reasons to just say “updates”.
Why are we spending more cycles on this??
More information about the rfc-interest