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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 12 September 2018 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 7CDFB130EA9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tAn6QXkeImmJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 3DADF130DFA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.114.1] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w8CLZsCY030502 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:35:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [192.168.114.1]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the =?utf-8?b?4oCcVXBkYXRlc+KAnQ==?= header
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:36:25 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12r5523)
Message-ID: <673FFEAA-C2CB-4F2B-A465-FF19A8C09328@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <3d96a4b2-1c4c-630d-14e0-c83810031e71@nostrum.com>
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <3BAD273A-C92B-4B81-AECB-253D212ECF22@gmail.com> <a082b73c-77df-5277-adea-5e13f7b52871@nostrum.com> <9fab7fbf-151a-fe06-b1ca-c31367113805@cs.tcd.ie> <3d96a4b2-1c4c-630d-14e0-c83810031e71@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s6-J7nBnMTKSs9k4pDtsnCgr0d4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Sep 2018 21:36:30 -0000

On 12 Sep 2018, at 14:18, Adam Roach wrote:

> I still don't follow. If the abstract does not contain enough 
> information to let someone know whether they want to read the rest of 
> the RFC, then what purpose *does* it serve?

To tell the reader if they want to read the Introduction. For example, 
it should indicate whether this is a description of the new Foo 
protocol, or an update to the Foo protocol, or just the definition of an 
extension. If it is defining a new protocol, what general realm is that 
protocol in?

> I note that many (non-IETF) protocol specifications are published 
> without an abstract at all. If ours doesn't serve any purpose, then 
> perhaps it's time we discussed whether RFCs need them at all [1].
> ____
> [1] To be clear, I think this would be a Really Bad Idea, but it's the 
> only logical conclusion I can draw from push-back on a proposal that 
> our abstracts do the one thing that abstracts are intended to do.

Yes, this is a bad idea, but there are needs of the reader that short 
abstracts fill just fine.

--Paul Hoffman