Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 26 March 2020 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C5D3A0C43 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.439
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q8It9cgMD_Al for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EAE33A0CFD for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443F2F4071C; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48BCF4071C for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0RLg-cUrhIU for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8C1BF406D4 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p19so3461989qve.0 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Nq2HfDusJ6PVFyiLBcmFRsLP6op04N6BnWdICtsTZxQ=; b=1La+GAo/395xR3Wmk6GZXIV5GUKKCmwT00uct/GYOddPmW0VQvh4X6p5sgCFqbX3gG UqdQYrrT0zqwOFKrC2t993YUkysi8WSVZHOXwqNwmfg9SDiACvVpcqTYQ2A2O4NJFR3i JApYRTeAZgsuf/cZ7PWQ4i6hH2/sD36re04emTRcj3axResYYP3CUeAZfEVc8UATzNZp twKzBY5yULHCT33+GerNstpdisfNkRO0U0MYTA9RpB6an4FUqhqlm2/BG0gljiS2W2IQ OAdxq/AMyTOjTXLNUPgLbizWbWheopJpwQeVL+TcX8WNtRxco9BMN1KdSeOCrCPs6bCA 15jQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Nq2HfDusJ6PVFyiLBcmFRsLP6op04N6BnWdICtsTZxQ=; b=rrEqHgNLlR782/R5v8q+9QiokxXaiR7qWRDS+6rSyD/Tn6WsNgfNZp8JGmkTTMgzUo DOzunDr0U5HeNVpU1VKE1hVmYP4X9v5V8ZzE5P2nmhagOEgskDU2KsoOubtaN66u/VHc Kw5ZntIfZUF7sCbHTuPsPoa84iKMhxBk3wc8eIVJIEIc7f2zj7kGWmkSZadIzJZpK1Fx u25i604B/1pL2H8EU5ywOhtSACgW2qseBGzjHwYcI5UXJ2bSZXh2tjlfW+d8wwhQ4IeJ xHI9hTbCLTl2GBfrYwCcm+QogGQA7KQGGXCBezBQxIs+Z53N/pcV3bs8dqjB2pF6d/kn GbBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3L6klcRXy5IZWfVwjwyalni90je817Sq8vwZ/UBLccY/tz/oHU x59V0eN60WgsmBUi9mUlOpZC3w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvHoxYWyfrQZGNABZ54m9LXCCL1cuBZWN0Xt1mKaTdlhtEia8HbZSRKH2iC8CIPWPY/SfKQFg==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4242:: with SMTP id l2mr9175122qvq.98.1585243930978; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id u4sm1810239qka.35.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3622.0.6\))
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:32:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3622.0.6)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: "" <>, Toerless Eckert <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1866621855536185313=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> As I said in my initial mail, the first rule of holes is "stop digging”.

Again not really an actionable comment, though, unless the first rule of code optimization is to never optimize.

What all of these “rules” mean is that you don’t have solid data to back up your opinion—it’s just your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that, and you might be right, but you can’t end a debate by expressing an opinion.

What might be a more actionable rule would be “don’t optimize until you need to,” which I think we have all taken to heart by this point in our careers.  I think you think we don’t need to optimize here; clearly the authors think we do.

A way forward is probably not going to involve someone convincing everyone else to have the same opinion.   Can we maybe do an exercise of analyzing some set of past RFCs to see how we think this document would apply to them?  That might help us to collect more data, so that we don’t just have to rely on opinion.

rfc-interest mailing list