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

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Thu Mar 26 09:53:50 PDT 2020

Well, it seems like this assumes without much evidence that having three
separate metadata types won't just triple the amount of rehashing.

It seems like there are at least two much simpler fixes:

- Stop using Updates or any other such metadata entirely
- Replace Updates with "See Also" and have it explicitly have no semantics
at all


On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:18 AM Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 3/25/2020 10:21 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:
> > What PROBLEM is driving this?
> >
> > Can we please STOP burning person-hours on this sort of nonsense?
> The problem is that the IESG keeps having to rehash this discussion on a
> document-by-document basis, which wastes the IESG's time. This is
> happening at the same time as the community is begging the IESG to
> figure out ways to lower ADs' workload so as to make it more attractive
> to a wider set of candidates.
> There is a straight line between those two points.
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/15ef311c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list