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

"Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 12 September 2018 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.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 153EB130F55 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:14 -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 VBXY_aN927P7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC329130EC3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795A71D2BB3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uu0u3s26pIbN for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [IPv6:2603:3023:30a:e7e0:ec87:7d39:f233:e5c7]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49A341D2822 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Proposed_IESG_Statement_on_the_use_of_the_=e2=80=9c?= =?UTF-8?Q?Updates=e2=80=9d_header?=
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <8DA3AA49-BB06-4DA6-A028-F487FC9822EB@sn3rd.com> <AFE1600A-7883-4CD6-BD6A-232E12514123@vpnc.org>
From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <f3d09ca0-bade-186d-2441-39215f387403@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:18:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AFE1600A-7883-4CD6-BD6A-232E12514123@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PWrU91zgD2tv0mtpSr54W2iuF5w>
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 23:18:22 -0000

On 9/12/18 7:45 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2018, at 7:33, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>>> The specific reasons that a given RFC updates another should be 
>>> described in the abstract and body of the new RFC. The level of 
>>> detail may differ between the abstract and the body; typically an 
>>> abstract should contain enough detail to help readers decide if they 
>>> need to read the rest of the RFC. The body should contain enough 
>>> detail for readers to fully understand the nature of the update.
>>
>> I like to say that I hate the whole list the reasons why in the 
>> abstract.  I understand that we also say what RFCs are updated in the 
>> abstract because there are some tools that don’t display the 
>> meta-data and that we do it so readers will know whether or not to 
>> keep reading.  That’s great for an RFC that’s updating one RFC and it 
>> keeps in line with keep the abstract succinct plus the boiler plate 
>> on the 1st page.  But, when you’ve got an RFC that’s going to update 
>> say eight (8) RFCs that this is kinda crazy.
>
> 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.

I think this is a very reasonable approach. The abstract should 
definitely be succinct, and text explaining the relationship of one RFC 
to another (or set of others) should exist, too, but I see it necessary 
that it exists in the abstract itself. Put it in the introduction or put 
it in its own section if the relationships are complicated enough to 
need a roadmap of some type.

-Heather