Re: [Gendispatch] Who decides about these tags? [was: Re: Some data about Updates in recent RFCs (was Re: New Version Notification for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-04.txt)]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 23-Jul-21 21:02, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On this point:
> 
>> On 23. Jul 2021, at 02:00, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And, by the way, who decides, since this will be added after publication?
>>>
>>> I have an open issue for this on github:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/7
>>>
>>> However, I on purpose did not try to address it in the last revision. 
I 
>> believe having these tags is just part of the consensus process as the 
rest of then document as well. As such similarly as for every other issue 
that is raised by the IESG, the IESG can block the document until the issue is addressed. Not sure we really need to say anything explicitly in the 
>> draft?
>>
>> "See also" is a bit different because it doesn't relate to normative effects in the way that "Amends" and "Extends" do. So it could affect any stream, not just IESG-approved documents. I guess that means that the RFC 
Editor is responsible. The old "Also RFCxxxx" designation that you find in the RFC index, starting with RFC29 and continuing at least through RFC2389, was certainly an RFC Editor decision. Possibly all of those should be changed to "See also”?
> 
> I didn’t consider the RFC editor as an option here yet, also because so far this proposal is scoped to the IETF stream. However, I also don’t see a need to strive for completeness for the “See also” tags. My assumption is rather to be conservative in adding it because if you add it too broadly it because less useful. Therefore having the authors or wg t decide about the “see also” tag is fine for me.
> 
> The draft explicitly discusses that there is no intention to change tags for existing drafts, as, to say it simply, that might be more effort that it’s worth it.

In general, I agree. The "Also RFCxxxx" anomaly in the RFC index has always annoyed me, because it is quite different from "Also BCPxxxx", "Also STDxxxx" and the old "Also FYIxxxx". If we do officially create "See also" 
I will strongly recommend the RFC Editor to change all the old "Also RFCxxxx" to "See also". But that is out of scope for your draft; sorry for the distraction.

   Brian