[rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag

Robert Sparks rjsparks at nostrum.com
Fri Aug 13 14:43:12 PDT 2021


Inline.

On 8/13/21 3:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Robert, you say
>
>> Instead of pursuing a change to the published metadata at this time,
> It occurs to me that changing the *metadata* for a published RFC,
> and changing it back at the end of an experiment, is not a problem.
> But we can never change the text of a published RFC. It's unfortunate
> that the current "Updates:" is both metadata and immutable text. Of
> course, an "Update Considerations" section (and its evil twin
> "Extension Considerations") would be part of the immutable text.
> What is wrong with a pure metadata experiment, which is reversible?

Is it really? History in places that we put things on the web seems to 
matter.

If we were to create new document relationships in the datatracker or at 
the RFC editor's site, I expect a good bit of pushback on taking them 
away later.

But more importantly:

> Continue to use immutable "Updates" in the text, but split it into
> two

I don't think we know that it's two...

So, do we _lose_ anything by trying to see if we can agree on what we 
mean in the prose first?

>   in the metadata?
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 14-Aug-21 02:00, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> I plan to put together a draft on this topic, but will not be able to do
>> so until a couple of weeks from now. This is one of the things I
>> intended to say in that draft:
>>
>> Instead of pursuing a change to the published metadata at this time, I
>> strongly suggest focusing the experiment on whether the desired
>> improvement in clarity can be achieved with prose. For the first
>> experiment, add a "Updates Consideration" near the beginning to any
>> document that might have used the new tags whether it uses the Updates
>> tag or not. Have the IESG ensure there is IETF consensus on what the
>> prose in that section says. If it turns out that the text to put there
>> becomes obvious and is easy to mechanically create, then we know what we
>> need to do with the metadata. If we continue to have long discussions
>> during evaluation about what the section should say, we know we need to
>> do something more than pursue this particular classification scheme.
>>
>> I think running that for a year and reporting on what was learned would
>> be a great help to this conversation.
>>
>> To be clear, this only addresses one part of the problem that I think
>> really underlies the discomfort you are working to relieve. If your
>> initial reaction is "but nobody's going to see that section", you're
>> feeling one of the other problems. Working this one out first is important.
>>
>> RjS
>>
>> On 8/13/21 7:03 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Based on the latest discussion at the gendispatch meeting, I’m
> moving this discussion back to the rfc-interest mailing list (with gendispatch in bbc only for this initial information).
>>> Also based on the discuss at the gendispatch meeting, I opened a couple of issues on GitHub:
>>>
>>> #13 Run this as an experiment or propose as BCP?
>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/13
>>>
>>> #14 Limit to IETF stream for now?
>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/14
>>>
>>> #15 Do we need "see also”?
>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/15
>>>
>>> #16 How many tags to use?
>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/16
>>>
>>> Please klick on these links to see a bit more description for each issue. Feel free to comment on GitHub or here by email. If you reply by email, if possible please reply separately per issue and adjust the subject line accordingly.
>>>
>>> The impression I got from the meeting, is that many/most people agree that there is _a_ problem but there is a lot of different views how to address it (see issue #16 above). I don’t think there is one best solution at this point and as such this draft is proposing one of them as a way forward.
>>>
>>> However, given there is no clear single path forward I also got the impression that people would be more happy with starting an experiment rather than picking one approach and go for BCP right away. How the experiment might exactly look like needs a bit more work (see issue #13), however,
> if people think that's the right way forward, I'm happy to work on more details.
>>> If we run this an experiment, I think it actually could be nice to start it now (and potentially only for the IETF stream; see issue #14) and then reevaluate as soon as the new RFC editor model and another discussion
> venue for these kind of works is in place.
>>> Please let us know if you have any thoughts and provide input on these
> issues by email or on GitHub!
>>> Mirja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list