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

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Wed Mar 25 16:54:05 PDT 2020

Thanks, Joe,

The Amendments to the US constitution is a good counter example
for my mis-understanding of it being "more". Thanks.

So the logic seems to be "Amended" would NOT have a clear difference
in meaning over "Updated" unless you try to go into gory
details. The main reason for changing words is to support a
change in semantic.

Then i am be fine with the change in word, but not the currently
proposed semantic.


On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:46:36PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
> > 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
> > Extensions.
> All good reasons to just say ???updates???.
> Why are we spending more cycles on this??
> Joe

tte at cs.fau.de

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list