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

Larry Masinter LMM at acm.org
Fri Aug 13 18:20:31 PDT 2021

Let me urge you to rethink your approach. I sympathize with the goal of clarity, but updating the RFC format is the last place to make updates (to the meaning of what 'updates' means.

It would be fine if the IETF / RFC Editor group were to add repositories with multiple, additional, external metadata, including categorization of the relationships between any subsets of RFCs, and tried to engage RFC authors and the IESG in experiments about what would be necessary to add clarity to the relation between documents beyond a few (confusing) bits.  

The problem is not the markup, it's that the actual, real situation is always ambiguous. If you add three possibilities a fourth and fifth will appear.

In the end, you're in a Humpty Dumpty world where a word means whatever it is that the people you care about think it means.

For fields in a form, for metadata standards, the bedrock is stability. You don't one set of documents that Updates mean one thing and another set where it doesn't. This is a long-standing problem in designing standard forms and standard ontologies. 

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list