IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ext] Re: [rfc-i] Evolving document sources over a long time (Re: Comments on draft-roach-bis-documents-00)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 23 May 2019 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 E8DDE1200D6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 04:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 MOwzo9wMvx_Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 04:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F19B7120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 04:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1558609822; bh=h2vVFdnblDd4M0o98wYx/hY/xDYQL2Q0KVzdTIcftkU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C8m1x4JrFvP7vV8Y3TtWyH/4ulElCUddaHdELj0MHmkzgtMNZaDubhDLOUzGWcZ/J 8jgac1FmLKw8EUMhEFyvgntvDdJPLd1ExvyegEVWc8emIWGKw3iT0hnK+KaqmiuxQj KxReUyJG1AF9yqsmoyG02vruCSq/uZgpormipiiU=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.1.34] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N1fii-1gWOda0Cue-011y7v; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:10:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [rfc-i] Evolving document sources over a long time (Re: Comments on draft-roach-bis-documents-00)
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
References: <CADaq8jdRMUZAN3rRXoActXqvGpkgx_-kW67uwzGLtVPoh7LfAQ@mail.gmail.com> <6E787E2A-18F2-4EFE-BFBA-61B1B4300930@tzi.org> <CADaq8jc1KJwC=Ypoo9a+-=Me=GP5tgX=2kcfUd56o53Mcu05kw@mail.gmail.com> <9179590B-C513-44DC-906C-16534DA8EC51@tzi.org> <1852d84b-48cc-0129-3564-6ec9b92c4315@gmx.de> <8A7B4E94-DBCD-4EE3-8FEA-EA642F1071BF@tzi.org> <CADaq8jeLwELxGM_zWG_OhiZ3nkm_F_a7A71B7aEv+xDdBmhYqg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jciU-yC1KDmXfYc7rqc9vtS0c3D_fWeFN=GEw4bxchMkA@mail.gmail.com> <74f72a19-a400-1cf2-a2a0-5abbf3646b43@nostrum.com> <866F6E4F-C640-46A6-AADF-EC4C81F44B7D@iana.org> <CADaq8jcARXdm=x5xcCurPnRfORApcnHQL2-n-ccfSSQT3V1Twg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU1+Re=EiAiPkLCm3MHrHthwy4OUhzx0qvKxam2GVnd=fA@mail.gmail.com> <00df01d5113d$49183c60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAA=duU1PyCRgnm3ip8GkTzEuLRC3hquvJRv_K511Xd45DCEd7A@mail.gmail.com> <d3a0b3bd-ba90-1655-a0cf-ad2af3cc6202@gmx.de> <CAA=duU1=nJbz-rcCnDJ0Bq6xqbPGjS1rJ5azcnX3m7e_63fnzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <c1f9fb98-efa4-a001-5d75-c4d9cd192773@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:10:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1=nJbz-rcCnDJ0Bq6xqbPGjS1rJ5azcnX3m7e_63fnzA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:yKoddHRLp/1OBn5+So6KhzZW/9Vdih6x6SWjNjHMKFoIzaHJaPl RAivku4guKiHysezZKF7KPPtGMv9augmofVxi2BER2fl4OaV6TWTtsJS3tUdDH92aP2x4Ne y3ATDWW5lRA3DqMEj2FKFDbJeVI9aUNsHbOUesu9QRK/z++WMucn0rTWf75p1IDwQc3J1zm Bpwsth5aKE9KTOGBGgFpA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:W8iDrXjbdsw=:ngwUeB9PIACqELQsWYbHBt LFaqX0PKw0SvQiaMxyHjOMO3k2cJ8Ulm8P6KJTk22ep2epcrmK4VV9a9ji5Cjz4IH6eoB0sAx jcCGIj3SiiATdxsn4NIi7pB7zt7X9/VsGafDsytl61KybCjAcNZlTPJsBz/iyeh4otxO439vC 5qpNdsaJ8bCSzsSp76DN6MogRV1vcL4IJIR6bCrFD8oncDAqAslthsX2w4HqppPDnS2iel/sg d2CXJ3JTB6VDBPYyFb7VrjUrGAq85SLa8TKPSjKYwTyHAcUBRgMX0pkPtOrVW69hiI91SL74T /4AK5UtTIsfI1JFAe9lUXQ/cbXFHFlrS4q+2TrU9p6iohu3zY8yvIc+V/JmbsZxBa5RYrnsHT xeR4PzvTWHNEB22LpcM7gmUwRundLeUjlWIScv5TZps4niQi4e86OrTePGUv501PgrEnbiAGz Aj0jyY3jivQ22oukliMf0K4MnQ033UGmPyH+R3QRMEiVL969aPGNjQ9a3I48kHGs8VakpUW9h RBpq8wxY/tnk/7h6JYN8ZVRvO1QZeF45XVGHWHYRmtmVplF5neP6Slhx5wumVFug2TUFcHiJ6 cr5jsg85uk5+GcCqcUmHAJQK+4FG/oVaAX59sPXBNFm6wLQT766Kd3vf2zBnIIFvSCmZag4oU tgTtB5LzBeIpLOV/L3PCl9Z62CtHb3WtaWH9/tjF7kN5xMiXfKlHWZBXblhPj2nxG2fihJM/Q 98jcBBS9ghTiXc7+v2NQvgSUXlMyHw0ZQvQCVOmwdxK7sjEkOcv9zmKIelIInxJtIh2ja0g24 18R+20sXZ3tPgiw2PajgsDXJZOfy0XG+Mn8djS4pYMAopxKIbj3JK33ZxJjve3jm1KAlTUt+H K9hCpVtAX5ogjo7DEj6ISjnc5l5Exkxk4xrq/aEoAwcNeyEVvX9pMRHvf63rtO6zUwSMlEXe9 wgv0of2Z4A9YQDs10ZV2vqGgSJquvAdPYqqLEbZex0GypoWuX0Lvj
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/I6UiF3L07BGPJ3Qc3uJ7mP5H1uc>
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, 23 May 2019 11:11:01 -0000

On 23.05.2019 13:05, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Julian,
>
> My understanding of the goal in draft-roach-bis-documents is to make the
> bis RFC as close to the original as possible, including formatting
> (modulo changes resulting from tooling changes), so that you don't need
> linking or to look in multiple places.

Yes. But...

> This would include a complete view of all IANA actions related to the
> protocol in one place. draft-roach wants to completely replace the
> original RFC with the bis, not just update it

I still don't get why past IANA actions are of any relevance for an
updated specification.

And yes, I understand that this is about replacing (obsoleting) a
document, not simply updating it. There may be cases where it's as
simple as that (RFC X replaced by RFC Xbis), but in my experience, there
are frequently other RFCs published in between that indeed updated the
original RFC and had their own IANA actions - so just having those from
X and Xbis does not give a complete picture.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email