Re: I-D Action: draft-roach-bis-documents-00.txt

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 C1C5912002E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 2shqISaD8mCV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 C583612007A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x482o4j6071569 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 May 2019 21:50:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1557283809; bh=uUZWuOmMVIxKC579EPk7X6o/JNrD88J6MmbFh5pRdnw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lbUdME5wFCYmzorQ1P5kj+itN/+l6GafmThHnTwFeu0Q9B19HwJyAlfdrfmtgaDJM mvzsyVEA+ba9uoyFE9FG6gUVf4SoBP1jKglLIoMW26pQBKnrs9VFDcIjlrql86Uq5m 1Zji8dDfnpiAwHC6bYj0dmSdFUSHgh9Uj3jfSpGc=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-roach-bis-documents-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <155727468140.24481.6999490968617833064@ietfa.amsl.com> <4565215f-c36c-7264-c30a-52d2f9547346@gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <400f1771-dea5-a554-7744-d2c7a8a60e3c@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 21:49:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4565215f-c36c-7264-c30a-52d2f9547346@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xDXTEueg6cdQhQI9FqLNjhM4i1w>
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, 08 May 2019 02:50:15 -0000

Brian --

Thanks for noticing and providing proactive feedback. This is a separate 
proposal, which isn't directly related to the discussion of the 
disposition of the "Updates" tag. You should see a separate proposal 
from Ted Hardie and/or Warren Kumari on metadata clarifications related 
to "Updates" shortly.

/a

On 5/7/19 8:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This seems reasonable. I'm not even sure it needs to be a BCP, since as far as I can see it doesn't introduce any new process rules. I'm also not sure it should be treated as mandatory, because each case is special.
>
> However...
>
> It doesn't help to clarify what the "Updates:" tag means (it only mentions "Obsoletes:") and it doesn't discuss how protocol extensions should be labelled. Should they carry the "Updates:" tag? Or should we ask the RFC Editor for a new "Extends:" tag, and "Extended by:"?
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> On 08-May-19 12:18, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>
>>          Title           : Process for Handling Non-Major Revisions to Existing RFCs
>>          Author          : Adam Roach
>> 	Filename        : draft-roach-bis-documents-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 8
>> 	Date            : 2019-05-07
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     This document discusses mechanisms the IETF has historically used for
>>     updating RFCs subsequent to their publication, and outlines an
>>     updated procedure for publishing newer versions (colloquially known
>>     as "bis versions") that is appropriate in certain circumstances.
>>     This procedure is expected to be easier for both authors and
>>     consumers of RFCs.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-roach-bis-documents/
>>
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-bis-documents-00
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-roach-bis-documents-00
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>