Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 12 December 2016 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 76140129483 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 3pZrPpsWHZRn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (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 777EB12945C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id c4so14517763pfb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2cq0qXg+gpOCWUDymW7VxCUInUvnd9IhmBQqhiCkS/8=; b=xRLQ3WIowBGvXvKOZbEtGZPUS3H8xDaSyTKTP0N1aqpQEMS4MUauSO2z8yziYYAkGz aBiaqdJI4VbRCeN7pJpY84m3Un9yKajxj3X9BkHmkzW1p2UcrpKs0YnQK6l+Pqk5xCOQ cnGMRe/ZTfKGoPzBzsGyTzfuZRD7jxiK2wrIKW8jqll9cecAMuRaROFXTVTx5YJhwRk5 EET8h4JNu1iBWXKaVCaZjlOzGEMnSs3qDo91hK/ZSGDjjtXRLwlbKdtQQ1iOSnHlKzU6 2xDZxW1ICSts663AD739YBddSPBs2xJgsUil0viQa7DQVhzYsRJ7Lo3o/WfPDMBWwD3Q ljiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2cq0qXg+gpOCWUDymW7VxCUInUvnd9IhmBQqhiCkS/8=; b=dRTbz/8LgsBhGdXT/3Xe/0y7veF7vDHxefmgRl6bwJ8lY3Jq1cA3r2lxebFFjGF9lv Ydld7/LOAyLSNNWnRfMEfs/+pFhg3clBHNBM9hzltBDNmUt8RNhLPlTNgV9d3ZW7JJbZ rnLn6qGWHqgCIqlcveZkb201RzjX9poXjcA5y+qPkJCwkRx3WOkzJiiJERM+KDSqQb9Q ShggW8ONtkv5o2YzVtUBLpjZ8yhLHTXZvDfBp+b2GvEOXyD/UwCvQf6VMg1ObZd7Xoql lcuyACTqStljgv0ebpblCyGJY2H+qwtO+ymr1xH6sT9W4kBpSzxj3c/1p0Xi87yiVX1b Wz7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03BD0d++tjL6XtSYvkzCugsSDuCmaYkgjSaDVva+alLrzsWqdZLWaoot73fy9gu9A==
X-Received: by 10.99.241.21 with SMTP id f21mr172141667pgi.110.1481580383908; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n17sm77618377pfg.80.2016.12.12.14.06.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <147389550726.29872.13885747896056913688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0f129603-20c0-921f-6a67-e5a4c74b3c41@gmail.com> <CAA=duU0NNCeL1EP5iJo9YxDmgdtgXSpa+GO1Xs_i38HMrFxSKQ@mail.gmail.com> <b4ab1536-0eb4-0bb4-d441-79cfd74cfd9c@joelhalpern.com> <66D4FC4D5384B187F1571399@JcK-HP8200> <9a3ff314-e778-b416-182f-0dd687f434ce@dret.net> <378400590145685410530968@JcK-HP8200> <25066.1481576196@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <896.1481578272@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <d527c6cd-bc0c-66b6-e481-2510f747879e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:06:25 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <896.1481578272@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W1QlBr0KVSSChK1FQtAwhXubkMo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:06:26 -0000

Michael,
On 13/12/2016 10:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>     > see inline. A great summary, just one nit which might be relevant:
> 
> I should add, having now read the document in question, which is remarkably
> short, if a been ironic:
> 
>    The obsoleted "Instructions to RFC Authors" [2] in Section 12
>    describe what "Updates" and "Obsoletes" mean.  These descriptions do
>    not appear in RFC 7322, and even if they did, they might still not
>    always be sufficient to understand the exact nature of the update.
> 
>    {RFC7322 obsoleted 2223, and 7322 doesn't include Updates or Obsoletes,
>    then it seems we've painted ourselves into a corner :-)}
> 
> but, my substantive comment is that we should obsolete the term "Updates"
> due to:
> 
>     Generally speaking, using "Updates" often has one of two possible
>     motivations: One is a bug fix ....
> 
>     The second motivation is that the updating RFC is a backwards
>     compatible extension, which means that strictly speaking, it does not
> 
> and instead use terms "Extends" and "Corrects".

I think this illustrates the dictum that "there is always a well-known
solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
[HL Mencken, 1917]. It's not that it wouldn't clarify the exact
status of certain RFCs - but it would hardly scratch the surface
of the underlying standards spaghetti.

IMHO, the problem tackled in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04
is too complex to be fixed by simple measures.

It's also worth looking at this (out of date) example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-stdproc-00

Anybody up for newnewtrk?

    Brian

> 
> I'm unclear if there is a new required section "Reasons for updating"?
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>