[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.

-------------- 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