[Gendispatch] Re: adding new forward references after publication

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

One of the main reasons I see for "improper" inclusion or exclusion of 
updates items is that different people understand the tag differently.  
And IESG efforts to fix that have not gotten community support.  Adding 
another tag without clarifying "updates" does not seem effective.

Yours,

Joel

On 1/21/2026 10:57 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Please see reply-to: gendispatch@
>
> Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > Separately, I think the WG made a mistake when publishing RFC 8808,
>      > which should have also *updated* RFC 8342.  It is unfortunate (dare I
>      > say tragic), as the <factory-default> datastore remains hidden to many.
>      > IDK if there exists a mechanism to change the "update" status of a
>
> It happens more often than I think anyone likes that we realize that readers
> of some other document would benefit from reading a future document.  One
> that we didn't think about at the time.
>
> Since in the end, the updates information is meta-data, and really lives in
> the DT (and RFC editor database), I wonder if we couldn't create some new
> category of relationship.  Amendable after publication without an RFC.
>
> This would I think, be akin to when we mark an RFC as Historical or Obsolete
> without publication of an RFC... it's an IESG decision subject to an
> IETF-wide LC comment.
>
> I'm CC procon, lacking another venue, but it's clearly not about
> consolidating existing practice.   I could write an I-D for a future GENDISPATCH.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>