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

Suresh Krishnan suresh.krishnan at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 09:17:51 PDT 2020

Hi Joe,

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:48 PM, Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>> On 27-Mar-20 16:01, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>> 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).
>> That's a ridiculous amount of work to suggest. There 1017 RFCs that carry the "Updates" tag, and 861 occurrences of "Updated by", according to the RFC index of yesterday.
> Really? So basically outgoing IESG members get to throw “work bombs” on the incoming IESG and the rest of us?

Huh? There is a reason there are two outgoing IESG members writing this. 

1) We have seen this issue come up several times there is an Updates tag in a draft up for IESG eval during our 4 year term
2) Mirja and I picked up this task exactly because we were outgoing and did not want this to be seen as pushed by the IESG on the community.

If you had followed the discussion on RFC Interest before when we introduced the draft for discussion


I *had specifically* added this note to the mail:

"NOTE: Even though we are both sitting members of the IESG, we have written this draft solely as members of the community and we will no longer be IESG members if and when this draft progresses"

> How about at least showing us a few examples where it actually matters AND would be unambiguous to determine.

i agree with you that this is a reasonable ask. Your original ask of going through *ALL* current updates was (IMHO) not, and that is what I think Brian was responding to.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200327/a44bbb65/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list