IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 13 September 2018 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 BAFE2130F61; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 grnEJM7NDfDR; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi (emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8995130F8B; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.56]) by emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54830301C6; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:10:15 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [172.19.235.111] (pf.eggert.org [172.16.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66C5F61B518; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:10:10 +0300 (EEST)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <FB4B7090-22C1-408B-A139-3D6FD2A90DD0@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8866E327-2FDF-4D0D-AB3B-BCED8D1F162D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:10:09 +0300
In-Reply-To: <9a505c33-3327-a13f-f5ce-4fac360169b1@nostrum.com>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, ietf@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <9a505c33-3327-a13f-f5ce-4fac360169b1@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-MailScanner-ID: 66C5F61B518.A1D08
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EgeDoegFIP8pBmwEggLnMj8HYZQ>
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:10:22 -0000

On 2018-9-11, at 21:08, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> I'm in the camp that prefers the more specific "This changes the code you need to write" camp - I would prefer Update be restricted to the cases where you are changing the protocol defined in the updated document in an essential way.

+1

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email