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

Rob Wilton (rwilton) rwilton at cisco.com
Wed Mar 25 16:57:04 PDT 2020



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert <tte at cs.fau.de>
> Sent: 25 March 2020 23:25
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton at cisco.com>
> Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke at gmail.com>; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
> 
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than "Updated"
[RW]
I'm not sure that "Amended" is significantly better than "Updated".

I think that the reason why a new term was suggested was to allow "updated" to have an ambiguous meaning but give "amended" a precise meaning.

I would just stick with the "Updated" tag but define/clarify its meaning going forward.


> 
> 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
> Extensions.
[RW]
I think that it would be fine for an RFC to both "Update/Amend" (if it is changing existing functionality) and also "Extend" (if it extends the base spec with new functionality).

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> 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