IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: An observation on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 07 February 2017 19:15 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 ACE711295BF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:15:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 UFOETv29SqGD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (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 1F0F41295B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y143so35253764pfb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:15:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8GgIlQ3F+bf9HVi1ckxSJLaPOw5bSm3wU6DJFR1XlGk=; b=Bf3XfRzgn0rKAiSKWlWL+XHo1jMc72QG6vCb2hxmJ/aQaSSK/8kZc2BBIHBQJmoXyc Ilj3BVPWCrE9F0jEG5KPA2eJVKOsu9LDub+euX+3OeLN+wVcwElNGcN9f5m3T7wQsXyY KUKJXUGHwuTuwF1onsliwUvlZyR9wRBOr6RdlF2f+Hpxe7h6D0s3rnmjZjAO6Ctc1oh/ KoVaiJk3FRb7nSVA7pFHDaexLSxEUZI+/D/oAApPKS8lyieb50XMyo/Hbs+lYE2SBvL6 DLMvjpXU27e/ZZq1YoMWVN0rR3DlrspU65jH6oM9iRy8TxZMj4VGmZ4U3C7lRHoyIfP7 gEUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8GgIlQ3F+bf9HVi1ckxSJLaPOw5bSm3wU6DJFR1XlGk=; b=grroTXhtChr0nhnLgWa7dLYFook+VAf84MaGnXI+vPn+WE3nN/ZdslORB4gz+S1kSW smsPTfk8YxmGSodFqkFHIaT+3cqCJcNSYbTVkRp2EJYt5IHqJckm1OPGJoy49USFDuQ8 ku/S5xltJ8pkIyIsCdLEO0lMTiRrZuFnSLUUVv/MvR4iPJviI3Sktw0zOmr/2DTI+hrk Hv1wB+4QEyPlhwEVt9avRtv3FJUOaP+IQp81XUdXU0fAsPw00wF9Bqt+aUHRCUG2CsD9 P8tmJJPl74b15KKzAOs6qSzDdPdEBhf7oNIWFxArWFWzgCC5HVpFnjRJehF6n2/TzQgi bxYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLgjLOyoAu05J9X4XH3DUfr6LneYySpRfHyxn0e77SmcidI7A3qlMK3AFYYYNbxgQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.167.10 with SMTP id d10mr22207558pgf.19.1486494907758; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.124.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z74sm13407944pfd.70.2017.02.07.11.15.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: An observation on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <d55a5027-b01a-8891-5e6e-4c519b5b9801@gmail.com> <CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <3a2f751d-aeb2-2705-9b27-bf95558eb835@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:15:06 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oKfgRUhqkqpcnuyt0FBjb2v5jcs>
Cc: IETF Discussion <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: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:15:09 -0000

On 08/02/2017 04:45, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, Stewart.
> 
>> The above text raises an interesting problem. If the update system works
>> then
>> the text should read [RFC2119]. If the update system does not work than
>> the text needs to be [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] as shown, but we also need to move
>> to a system where we always list the update set at the time of publication,
> 
> It took me a while to get what you mean here, but I think I have it:
> you're saying that because this document (RFC xxxx) UPDATES RFC 2119,
> *any* document that cites RFC 2119 and is published after this one
> must automatically be taken to refer to this one and must follow the
> terms of this one. 

Huh? If a document refers to RFC2119, it refers to 2119. That might be
a bug in the document, but I don't think we've ever said that updates
propagate by magic in that way. (We have said that the current system
is broken, because implementers have to follow a daisy chain to find out
the latest versions of everything, but that's a different problem.)

Recommending that future documents cite [BCP14] would simplify life.
The RFC Editor knows how to handle that.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email