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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 September 2018 18:25 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 D1072130EDF; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 qcsIVPhWfJVT; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9A91292F1; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E77E20090; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 99A1982; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9565C7B; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ietf\@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the =?utf-8?B?4oCc?= =?utf-8?B?VXBkYXRlc+KAnQ==?= header
In-Reply-To: <F97F111E-D401-4585-B5EF-BA5F4CD870E1@nostrum.com>
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <007801d449ec$e850b5a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <F97F111E-D401-4585-B5EF-BA5F4CD870E1@nostrum.com>
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:25:20 -0400
Message-ID: <21527.1536690320@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JDn_Cf737gD99oqROsWI8-_FLjw>
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:25:24 -0000

I have read the statement, and I think it's a bit weak.
I don't feel very clarified, and Tom asked the question I would have.

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:
    >> On Sep 11, 2018, at 11:31 AM, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>;
    >> wrote:
    >> To give a practical problem; when an I-D adds new entries to an
    >> existing registry, is that an 'Updates'?  I have seen ADs firmly tell
    >> WG Chairs, holding the contrary opinion, that it is not, and I thought
    >> that that was settled, but applying this statement to that situation
    >> leaves me in ignorance.

    > The intent is that these are usually not “Updates”. But they can be if
    > there are special circumstances, which I presume would be documented in
    > the text that describes the nature of the update. An individual AD may
    > or may not agree with an argument that a particular update is “special”
    > in this sense, but I believe we all agree that such special cases are
    > in the realm of possibility.

I don't think that this situation is terribly rare or special.
It definitely happens regularly in my opinion.

When doing -bis documents with the intent of Obsoletes a previous document,
I think that all of the Updates: need to be reviewed.  I think that Updates:
should be considered in a future context of revising the document.
  "if you were revising it now, would you include the new text?"

If the feature/extension is still quite rare, unpopular, or very specific to
very narrow scopes, then I don't think it should Updates:.    In most cases
when a document in WG X does an allocation from a document produced by WG Y,
I don't think it's ever an Update. (X!=Y, except when X and Y are clearly
related, such when Y=="Xupdates" or "Xmaint")

When WG X does such an allocation for the WG-X-protocol-foo-extension, then I
think it definitely is an update, but that's not because it did the
allocation, but because of what it does to the protocol.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


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