Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 September 2018 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CFF128CFD; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xmWUWu6gJX0; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0AC1277BB; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B757E20491; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9FCFC230; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B27D7B; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
cc: ietf@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the =?utf-8?B?4oCcVXBk?= =?utf-8?B?YXRlc+KAnQ==?= header
In-Reply-To: <AFE1600A-7883-4CD6-BD6A-232E12514123@vpnc.org>
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <8DA3AA49-BB06-4DA6-A028-F487FC9822EB@sn3rd.com> <AFE1600A-7883-4CD6-BD6A-232E12514123@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <5222.1536773214@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3687xh49qHXMp3ByeCUmmEcr3fE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:27:00 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; wrote:
    > Sean's exactly right here. Having to add a lot of new text to the
    > abstract basically makes it a mini-introduction. Instead, please
    > consider:

    > The specific reasons that a given RFC updates another should be
    > described near the top of the Introduction section of the new RFC,
    > possibly in its own sub-section. This text should contain enough detail
    > to help readers who are familiar with the specification that is being
    > updated to decide if they need to read the rest of this newer RFC. This
    > text must contain enough detail for readers to fully understand the
    > nature of the update.

well said.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-