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

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Fri Aug 13 15:15:08 PDT 2021


On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 7:00 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com> 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.
>

As I mentioned previously, I think the right answer here is just to stop
digging, but if people really feel we should do something, then what Robert
suggested seems better than creating new metadata fields which we then have
to argue over.

-Ekr


> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210813/c57fc416/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list