Re: [dhcwg] ISDs [was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard]

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian,

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 24/02/2016 07:44, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > On 23/02/16 18:36, Fernando Gont wrote:
> >>
> >> That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on
> >> *something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be
> >> clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when
> >> a "Updates" tag is warranted or not)
> >
> > In theory, yes. I don't find it to be something that I'd prioritise
> > myself. I suspect attempts to "fix" this would open a can of worms
> > about the general semantics of relationships between RFCs and would
> > likely end up being very hard to get done, and with not much benefit
> > at the end.
>
> It's clear that there is a problem with "updates", "obsoletes", "normative
> reference" and "informative reference" being the only clearly defined
> relationships between documents. Sometimes you just need to read a group
> of documents with none of these relationships to get the whole picture.
>
> We have a draft solution:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-isdbis-00
>

I remember ISDs, and liked them when we discussed them back in the mists of
history.

I agree that we do try from time to time to use the mechanisms we've got,
to accomplish some of the things ISDs would accomplish.

Spencer