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

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 11 September 2018 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E619130F0F for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPL9PBZIiWTX for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B90D130DCA for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1536691910; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zRhknxw0sJQ5tA3OIIKRX+6Qo5wRFgNOGxeHkt2IQYo=; b=SoHhQ3rhiW020tPaG3NFjDzkWlwZaZ8QVsCm5NGXAnNa9u+3df3D68iT45l0aJZA uNhs5asasV/lxHD0qSwFzq+eV3M0BCFyN+SyTdDp2tGbKDTXjsZtqFiZaft1TDBp kMmQo7PJKrRMIu2g8it55ziFt5g3/Vs0fSopMZLBIjU=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-2ddff70000007a64-e2-5b980ec62a15
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9D.05.31332.6CE089B5; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:51:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:51:49 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:51:49 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Ben Campbell <>, Bob Hinden <>
CC: IETF <>, IESG <>
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UkU6IFByb3Bvc2VkIElFU0cgU3RhdGVtZW50IG9uIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhl?= =?utf-8?B?IOKAnFVwZGF0ZXPigJ0gaGVhZGVy?=
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?UHJvcG9zZWQgSUVTRyBTdGF0ZW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUg4oCc?= =?utf-8?B?VXBkYXRlc+KAnSBoZWFkZXI=?=
Thread-Index: AQHUSegUTAr/BG4kyECB+aTyX3t9baTrRfWAgAADvgCAACIYoA==
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:51:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7ke4xvhnRBh8vilnM7zzNbrH1/T42 ixl/JjJbPNs4n8WBxWPnrLvsHkuW/GTymLXzCUsAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxuL5c9gL7nBX LJq+nL2BcQt3FyMnh4SAicTMNdOZuxi5OIQEjjJK9F+7yQ7hfGOUeP7mAyOEs4xR4uGU+yxd jBwcbAIWEt3/tEG6RQRcJda3tjOD2MwCehJ/fy5mAbGFBWok3r85xg5SLiJQK7H5sjpEuZPE 1VufwcpZBFQlut4sBbN5Bawlvs9oZoZbdW3XVbAEp4C9xLclp8BsRgExie+n1jBB7BKXuPVk PhPEBwISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErSew9dh3sZGYBTYn1u/QhWhUlpnQ/ZIfYKyhxcuYTlgmM YrOQTJ2F0DELSccsJB0LGFlWMYoWpxYX56YbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgTG1sEtv612MB58 7niIUYCDUYmHd/7/6dFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHhDPgGFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ 8zqlWUQJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGFcEXXBaYpjRrdXcYSbcdDmEQyK52a+hQijK4Iet zWKWN+fntVSLKmVd7OX2YNm1+2B5ch7LlVNPfT1tXrh7hZ6z8G1Sdr/K9138mN3d/wqGOlMv TPqesXht4Lx3TMV3LKbwbV39b6fx/d2luw6Lmdx/OtEp9O3t0OptNUYrbvzjOryby/s7rxJL cUaioRZzUXEiAGTvii2pAgAA
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:51:57 -0000



>> I worry about the
>>   "abstract should contain enough detail to help readers decide if they need to read the rest of the RFC”
>> This may result in a long Abstract depending on the nature of the “update” and defeat the purpose of the abstract 
>> if it gets too long.   I think the update text in Abstract should be limited to a few sentences and that the IESG statement 
>> include something to that effect.
> I agree with you on the length. I think we assumed that detail to “decide if you need to read the document” could be done
> in a a few sentences. We could add something to that effect, but I don’t think we want to take on the general topic of “what 
> makes a good abstract” in this statement.

I think there shall always be an "Update to RFC XXXX" section, where the actual updates are defined. The updates may be clear to the people who have been working on the spec, but maybe not to others.

In addition, the Introduction (rather than the Abstract) can give an overview of what the updates are.