Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:31:12 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson to: IETF discussion list 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> <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 Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:31:17 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Michael Richardson 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 , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAlhPFyAACgkQgItw+93Q 3WX9egf/bDGph7UB+v1k19+SHm0/BFYLXOF9d1rc8psREu/GWqQGPC1AUK7AG68v l1a7G18WPuy2zgAZntnbROjSbWz6B3Et/HrN3dWTeJmJhWUcP7yFoFu+2i+WQSK9 hDajno/GwbGvmDszExd/uQW09uXY2YBKRC641B4aV5qYaQwJbPV0EzkoUmb7iNum kX4sAk1HKleXLrNxnRBurrcgKax9kLiKrnH0IJdrcdxQDEv1N3uQIws5421qMCNT KPsfL1tmAwTo4skNA6IYb1s1MYCWtBq7lroVe1Sgt0VQQgAO8cquC+N/Un4IuKyH U/ySpj10EvhNgBcVvVqApwu8i3fZ3w== =lWwl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--