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

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Thu Mar 26 11:56:41 PDT 2020


I would appreciate if we would first or at least also work on guidance
for what needs to go into an "update to RFCXXXX" section for new
documents. Once we are clear about at the things that should be
said (how prir doc is changed, what impact on interop thia
results in, ..), it will be a lot easier to figure out if there are simple
classifications that could go into metadata. Then its yet a third
step whether we should try to expand/proliferate on our rather
old metadata approach or go with newer approaches like what Mcr
suggested.

Cheeers
    toerless

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> (Resend.)
> 
> Joe, we all know that the formal words we use do not have the same meaning
> that they do in English.  Our standards are not, effectively, "requests for
> comment".  They are standards.
> We also know by observation that other people have understood "Updates" in
> ways that are different from how you understand it.  Claiming that the
> meaning as used for metadata on RFCs is "obvious to any English speaker" is
> contradicted by the observable facts.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/26/2020 1:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > On Mar 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ???Updates??? means just that - it affects the base document in a way that
> > > > MIGHT be hazardous to ignore. That means you need to read the doc to
> > > > find out why, to what extent, and how that affects what you want to
> > > > do.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if you can recognize that this might not be the only way it has been
> > > used in the past.  Maybe those uses were in error, but you've picked a
> > > particular definition that wasn't always applied.
> > 
> > I do. Adding terms doesn???t make that more clear or useful. Updates means changes of any nature that do not replace the prior RFC in its entirety.
> > 
> > If that isn???t obvious to any English speaker, then these nuanced other terms that subdivide that category further definitely will not help.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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