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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2018-09-12 06:08, Robert Sparks wrote:
> > I can live with this statement, but I don't like it.
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> The IAB already opined indirectly on this topic.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#page-5 says:
> 
> >>>    Extension designers should examine their design for the following
> >>>    issues:
> >>> 
> >>>    1.  Modifications or extensions to the underlying protocol.  An
> >>>        extension document should be considered to update the underlying
> >>>        protocol specification if an implementation of the underlying
> >>>        protocol would need to be updated to accommodate the extension.
> >>>        This should not be necessary if the underlying protocol was
> >>>        designed with a modular interface.
> 
> (followed by more detailed discussion).
> 
> I'm not sure the IESG text is 100% compatible with this.

I believe it was intended to be, and I'm not sure what incompatibility you
are seeing; could you say more?

> > nor do they, by themselves, imply that implementers must implement the updating RFC to continue to comply with the updated one.
> 
> seems to be going to far. It may be the intent of the update that
> implementations *need* to be updated, because the update fixes a bug.
> In that case, "updates" really means "partially obsoletes". 

Is there anything stopping the body text of the document from saying "this
document updates [foo] by obsoleting the completely broken bits that do
[bar]"?

Namely, the *keyword* does not indicate that you must update
implementations.  The body text can try really hard to say that you should
do so, though.

-Ben