[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft

Stephen,

On 2/26/20 7:08 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/02/2020 23:52, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> Now with a link to the draft :-)
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-01
> 
> Best of luck with it. You may need it;-)
> 
> I'd be very supportive of defining these new tags. I'm
> not at all keen on discontinuing the use of UPDATEs
> until this new stuff has been shown to work and to have
> been adopted by authors/WGs. So allow some overlap (e.g.
> 3 years) after which these new tags are discontinued
> unless UPDATEs is instead discontinued. Or something
> like that.
> 
> If you wanted to do this with no overlap, I'd be against
> it.

I don't understand your logic here. Either this is a good change or it 
isn't. If it is (and I think so), then why can't the change be mandated, 
by forbidding the publication of new docs using the old tags? The 
checking could be implemented in IdNits.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>>
>> Thanks Suresh
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 4:07 PM, Suresh Krishnan
>>> <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all, Mirja and I wrote a draft defining new tags for defining
>>> relations between RFCs. One of the ongoing areas of confusion
>>> within the RFC Series is when and how RFCs interact with each
>>> other. What does it mean to have one document update another? Is
>>> information being added, or is existing information being changed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Asking the question of how to indicate relationships in the
>>> metadata for the documents has come up a few times (one example:
>>> ?Subject: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the ?Updates?
>>> header? [0]), though generally in the context of IETF stream
>>> documents only. When we wrote the draft we were aiming it solely
>>> for use in the IETF Stream but we realized it might have wider
>>> applicability.
>>>
>>> We would ideally like to see relationships between RFCs more
>>> clearly defined in such a way as to apply regardless of document
>>> stream. We have introduced this draft already to the stream
>>> managers of the IAB, the IRTF and the Independent streams and would
>>> like to hear what the community thinks about this proposal. Thanks
>>> to everyone on rfc-i who as already commented. We would love to get
>>> some feedback specifically about but not limited to
>>>
>>> * Do you have any concerns about the guidance as proposed in this
>>> draft? * Do you have any concerns about doing this series? wide?
>>>
>>> Regards Suresh and Mirja
>>>
>>> NOTE: Even though we are both sitting members of the IESG, we have
>>> written this draft solely as members of the community and we will
>>> no longer be IESG members if and when this draft progresses :-)
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE/
>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing
>> list rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest