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

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Thu Mar 26 10:03:17 PDT 2020


On Mar 26, 2020, at 12:53 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote:
> - Stop using Updates or any other such metadata entirely
> - Replace Updates with "See Also" and have it explicitly have no semantics at all

Another solution that would work: stop publishing RFCs.  :)

I really don’t see what the objection to this is.  If it works, we win.  If it doesn’t work, I don’t think we’re any worse off.  You assume that having three types will triple the rehashing, but there’s no real justification for that assumption.  Does a hash table make things slower?  This is sort of analogous: instead of one bucket, you have multiple buckets, each with a clearly defined meaning.  Even if it doesn’t dramatically improve things, it probably won’t make them significantly worse.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/4cb94fc0/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list