[rfc-i] Updates solution that you object to (was Re: draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/)

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Sun Mar 29 14:33:37 PDT 2020

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf at kuehlewind.net> wrote:
    > I mentioned this briefly at the beginning of my presentation in
    > gendispatch but to provide more background: The IESG already tried to
    > address the problem by proposing an IESG statement to clarify that the
    > updates tag merely provides a link but otherwise brings no defined
    > obligations with it, see [1]. The feedback we got from the community at
    > that time was that they would prefer a clear definition. So Suresh and
    > I took this up and are proposing this as members of the community (of
    > course with the background that we are well aware of any IESG
    > discussions related to this topic that happen in the last 4 years).

Thank you again for taking this on.

We have had a number of strong opinions about what we should do.

Opinions I have read proponents for:
   1) Updates is fine, keep it as is.
   2) The three tags are good.
   3) New tags are needed, but not sure if these work
   4) The three tags will just make it 3x worse
   5) I like Updates->Amends, but other two are useless
   6) Get rid of all tags, write it all up the document
      {6B) write it up in some split-up Normative Updates section}

   (Maybe there a few I have missed!)

What I haven't heard a lot of, (attempting to channel Pete and 7282):

     I can not live with option FOO (because ...)

Well. Maybe (4) above is such an expression.
I think that the community may have said it can not live with (1).

It would be good if people could recognize if they are in the rough, and work
to figure out which things they could live with.

Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200329/26132251/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list