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

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Thu Mar 26 10:44:16 PDT 2020


On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> As I said in my initial mail, the first rule of holes is "stop digging”.
>
>
> Again not really an actionable comment, though, unless the first rule of
> code optimization is to never optimize.
>
> What all of these “rules” mean is that you don’t have solid data to back
> up your opinion—it’s just your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that,
> and you might be right, but you can’t end a debate by expressing an opinion.
>
> What might be a more actionable rule would be “don’t optimize until you
> need to,” which I think we have all taken to heart by this point in our
> careers.  I think you think we don’t need to optimize here; clearly the
> authors think we do.
>
> A way forward is probably not going to involve someone convincing everyone
> else to have the same opinion.   Can we maybe do an exercise of analyzing
> some set of past RFCs to see how we think this document would apply to
> them?  That might help us to collect more data, so that we don’t just have
> to rely on opinion.
>

You and the proponents should feel free to do so. However, at present, the
situation is that this proposal doesn't have anything like consensus (and
yes, that's because a number of us are of the opinion that no action is
needed) and so the burden on the proponents is to try to build that.

-Ekr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/3e8eedc9/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list