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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 12 December 2016 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 09289129784 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:31:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 bA-BcphP0ZNI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B1F1289C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A546E200A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:48:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D2A63770 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:31:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <25066.1481576196@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
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> <66D4FC4D5384B187F1571399@JcK-HP8200> <9a3ff314-e778-b416-182f-0dd687f434ce@dret.net> <378400590145685410530968@JcK-HP8200> <25066.1481576196@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:31:12 -0500
Message-ID: <896.1481578272@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sJK0KfkVbRELDc4pqRUf3y0hOCY>
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:31:17 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > see inline. A great summary, just one nit which might be relevant:

I should add, having now read the document in question, which is remarkably
short, if a been ironic:

   The obsoleted "Instructions to RFC Authors" [2] in Section 12
   describe what "Updates" and "Obsoletes" mean.  These descriptions do
   not appear in RFC 7322, and even if they did, they might still not
   always be sufficient to understand the exact nature of the update.

   {RFC7322 obsoleted 2223, and 7322 doesn't include Updates or Obsoletes,
   then it seems we've painted ourselves into a corner :-)}

but, my substantive comment is that we should obsolete the term "Updates"
due to:

    Generally speaking, using "Updates" often has one of two possible
    motivations: One is a bug fix ....

    The second motivation is that the updating RFC is a backwards
    compatible extension, which means that strictly speaking, it does not

and instead use terms "Extends" and "Corrects".

I'm unclear if there is a new required section "Reasons for updating"?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-