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

Joseph Touch touch at strayalpha.com
Thu Mar 26 20:01:12 PDT 2020

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> ekr,
> On 27-Mar-20 06:44, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
> It doesn't have consensus, but the question (when it gets to Last Call) is whether it has rough consensus.
> fwiw I agree that there is a manifest problem with ambiguous use of Updates and I think that the proposed solution is good.

How about giving us some concrete examples? Or perhaps the authors could (should)?

> On 26-Mar-20 11:41, Martin Duke wrote:
>> But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references before the text starts.
> I very much doubt it. At the moment RFC793 shows:
> "Updated by: 1122, 3168, 6093, 6528"
> Whether those are amendments or extensions I don't know.

And that’s part of the point. It isn’t clear. It never will be.

What does 

> Certainly it's incomplete; for example RFC7474 amends RFC793.

How so? It doesn’t even cite it or use the term “TCP”. You meant RFC7414 maybe?

> And so what anyway? If an important RFC like 793 is amended or extended by 50 RFCs, that should definitely be in the metadata.

7414 doesn’t itself update or emend anything.  It lists things that update, emend, or do both to 793.

Draft-tsvwg-udp-options - does what?
	- it extends UDP with options
	- but it also alters UDP to prohibit UDP length values that 786 allows

Is that extends or emends?

I’d really llke to see a list of *ALL* current “updates” and a proposed disposition to each as whether it uniquely and unambiguously extends or emends (or see also).

If the authors can’t present that, then they have failed to demonstrate that their “solution” is a step in the right direct.

We’ll wait.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list