IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 15 September 2016 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 B0BBB12B05E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 NO5x7HmIbOC3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 1E9AE12B00C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m79so6446369ioo.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=Loirum07tgeO6HbEVZcYAQWfQMJi0GhIV278FEO9Frc=; b=A4VtkyKQyZ28C+qAk2YErjZOMW2m0upAWZafSroyvR+6LsToNEkWlAcRkAyRjVssia LT9Mc3PG5tV+O6voihkvFlMMR+/1MqWh+Ead0jwpG71siLUJvhmsH6PS3YcGD2PL3TRY /LyMGdRD02wkz6KgJdeZpNfQUY3f3SUUMQ1YLTJEVFVJpvBOZ0njg4CIymZSxjw96kI8 o8SHGLj1AMO0ZWaPgfdbooqHvorAmfDz+aE3TIICVM1EjaH1nxhBrm4lbB+0Ik/ZFvIh M0hgXeGLVCPaQCBkNfY9h1vkoE6zFO44XTBu5b3qLDch0ZBnxr2D/kh7CcVvtaGpUz8B VKLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=Loirum07tgeO6HbEVZcYAQWfQMJi0GhIV278FEO9Frc=; b=YEIHIFLSzM+dWFlfudFQksBGY5ZNDWow810eg90ITYyOsLuzhLBb3Fnm/ucSKVhE53 0/lg0eAIbbx7GkR+qd14aZq3o/G/z2NZhZl/7WcVE5M3Cn48LsLsYR7DaQCPjmhHPEzD nE9sqcTSFp4IC9hubVSRux7/W3Y938va62mp9zE0h7FstEkglu0iGFRob8+ZL2pDNUBM yvjcmUbmaCP5pPokp/9ItSB+nHsnwSv2Fi8DbTfTeIm529+/2m8nWWugdjxyQm9XTV97 bigko/qQXlKYhF7ZBxPLkY5RXWI5EOySWdmhwrWwwXbadDuMksBUeqQYbd37gz7spMdQ Ku/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOg2OcQgTFXci2DTaXm9iQR/RetNE2qan8vyVu+cXb4Jp0tOhY0BG98BujukpOpHA==
X-Received: by 10.107.34.197 with SMTP id i188mr22220716ioi.140.1473976978282; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b137sm2483638ioe.40.2016.09.15.15.02.56 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_81D755D3-3AD8-41BF-B5D9-CA1C5B5EA3C4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <83c3154a-a436-f762-8916-f7576beaa043@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:02:54 -0700
Message-Id: <22AFC596-56FF-470C-A8CD-BDC1E5F6E5FD@gmail.com>
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> <etPan.57dadf28.651c4751.8438@rfc-editor.org> <4c2ec1df-b9af-c35c-9147-ee9cac31abe1@joelhalpern.com> <83c3154a-a436-f762-8916-f7576beaa043@gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o2FBLuV4ycIjmWFZ9drcyhJADuQ>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:03:01 -0000

Brian,

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Everybody's correct, IMHO. We need to have a general explanation of
> what "updates" (and "obsoletes", but that's simpler) means that will
> apply to all RFCs, and we need specific guidance within the standards
> track in particular.

I agree.  However, it would be confusing if the streams adopted different definitions of what update and obsolete means.

Bob

> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 16/09/2016 05:56, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I agree that it would be good if those streams paid attention to the
>> discussion.  It would be particularly good if they made the same choices
>> about meaning.
>> But due to our history, it seems to me that the decision to do that is
>> up to each stream.  And thus the IETF having the discussion is helpful.
>> I would hope that if the IAB or IRTF (or ISE) have observations about
>> the approaches, the IETF would pay attention to that.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 9/15/16 1:49 PM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>>> From the RFC Editor perspective, I’m hoping that this document will
>>> touch on more than just the IETF stream. Both the IAB and the
>>> Independent Submissions streams (but not the IRTF stream) contain
>>> Updates/Obsoletes. Not many, but they do exist and should be accounted for.
>>> 
>>> -Heather
>>> 
>>> On September 15, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern
>>> (jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> As the draft is probably about IETF process, not RFC Editor rules, I
>>>> would think that ietf@ietf.org would be the venue for discussing the
>>>> draft, unless Jari thinks it needs a separate list (which I doubt).
>>>> 
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>> 
>>>> On 9/15/16 8:58 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>>>> I noticed that as well in the announcement. The proper place to discuss
>>>>> this draft is most probably rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>>>>> <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>>>>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note to Readers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   This draft should be discussed on the wgchairs mailing list [1].
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Um, no. That's a closed list.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Regards
>>>>>       Brian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> Heather Flanagan
>>> RFC Series Editor
>> 
>> 
>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status