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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 22 September 2016 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 E171A12BA45; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] 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 VSC0BadCKQaB; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613CD12B7BF; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FCD2D04A; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HR_hhkJ5S-Kr; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7329D2CD0D; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_58B28404-1609-496F-9A98-AEFB49E4C695"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <e66c7d14-1903-09bd-23f0-396d9690a178@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0300
Message-Id: <E589B1E8-8E92-4E46-8D96-55120C7A5059@piuha.net>
References: <147389550726.29872.13885747896056913688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e66c7d14-1903-09bd-23f0-396d9690a178@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y2eYVReL3XoEkMWD9F46YhVmJcM>
Cc: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:24:24 -0000

FWIW, ietf@ietf.org is probably a good place to discuss the general topic of Updates: and its semantics. I realise that there’s a distinction between what the RFC format and IETF stream semantics are. But frankly, I can’t get excited about that, and in either case… this is a topic that the community needs to discuss if we are going to define better semantics.

My personal opinion is roughly where Brian’s comments were.

I’ll add that there’s plenty of variation of thought for the semantics of Updates, both in terms of what different people think and what has been done over time for different RFCs. The semantics have been vague, and even if we institute a new agreed policy, it doesn't change past RFCs. Going forward, in general, I’m in favour of explaining, explicitly, in the RFC what it means. Why are we updating, obsoleting or extending something previously defined? What are the changes? What are the impacts if you do this or don’t do this?

Jari