Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 29 March 2017 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 8099F1294F6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.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 GFZ1M2GBTonn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CA4E129510 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.158] (50-232-11-130-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.232.11.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2TDUglS005258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:30:42 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1490794243; bh=1cjyMr1JH8Wq8HnIpUJRbzP8vS64rIyArVVtFV98Iqk=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=InbgLiu+CnVdt8LC76DhpExM10GEoNJM6x/0aCqo5QryMkHtKAmdS+pBp44aDEd9J 6BJFZc7nN9WO02TJj6G0h5fwRYCu5ngHViXTV/jGGFLrdmXnWZwZNUgFdoP9TN841o GhFYiL3kyDrjzXJJC0dWaGTDMFTrmyYSeccpyb7w=
Subject: Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <94f81f6a-6a34-6587-a4f7-683586c2f436@dcrocker.net> <38BC1BB4-0996-4138-BEE0-58CD4F2B867B@gmail.com> <de157331-d3ff-483c-b69b-116f4d1cde0b@dcrocker.net> <28769B239D7982B8A4E8E932@JCK-EEE10>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <717845a7-aab9-9b8c-13b1-bacd576f5656@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:28:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28769B239D7982B8A4E8E932@JCK-EEE10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kYhPPzO0Le5GCzLhU1blRDNu9bs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 29 Mar 2017 13:28:40 -0000

On 3/29/2017 8:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> However "Obsoleted By" means "don't use the old stuff".
> Sadly, while it should, it doesn't.  The community has allowed
> several situations to occur in which a document is obsoleted,


I fear you are overinterpreting the use of what I'm suggesting or are 
conflating tasks.

Anyone who wants to be, or must be, diligent and thorough still can be.

My suggestion is for the folk who want simple, simplistic, basic access 
to 'the most current' spec.  The concerns you raise do not invalidate 
the suggested mechanism's accomplishment of that goal.

Rather, your concerns highlight the bounded scope of that goal, which 
I'll claim was already there -- but it's ok to emphasize it.  One can 
imagine an IETF Surgeon General's warning sign on the banner when the 
'latest' version is displayed, cautioning against excessive inhaling of 
the contents.

So, yes, the concerns you raise are all entirely valid... for someone 
who must dot all the specification i's and cross all the implementation 
ts, but that's not the target audience for the mechanism I'm suggesting.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net