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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C95D3A0BD2 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 AdFkmVlbGCCE for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E66C03A0BDC for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E4AF406D4; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B61F406D4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5bUCqmGmCUDG for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 258FEF406D1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g27so7305429ljn.10 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zSdPramqiqUSZ0H/FSjzx2xdZT6yfO+PijFTY5w55mg=; b=Z98LqBNJ/nvqmrtYSB7+SzxTK53MT7u6O2JCT29aQ8Sn+W3tPauoIWAxhDTrbiN1dU SbYvfsDtd5KVQD9uiOjMM1By6lAHS0y05pHrh1r5Hznemv+VzZ9ZBARUvZAU7MV0NTYc 9jJj1e3eOZPeD0h7M2LXcD2jy/ZnKdD8MFvhEDT68zfWBU0/tIAG6Sx7Ztmymddzb7Ot qkpDk4ofo/Vf8fFIrPWCwoM16ueY31Ejd8yFm4ArJU7lcuNC65fQQgni33pV7e8ln6u8 PM3bda/Lrn8x0NQyHvm/0awZiKN/Lmug6+nK72kdMMxCi4kFVB1IDm5jLc5NGSrKKcCK lZ9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zSdPramqiqUSZ0H/FSjzx2xdZT6yfO+PijFTY5w55mg=; b=cEs7p063RTwIyBhAM07Jjp7+QXKsaWAjYqfjBknVsu535GOEyxiX6V65N8qN2JKpzb LUL6TYKlp1T4O7UluwSC6BI+wBVyAVi4GiPZ1OKLYe0hv1ZVe90PN98xAmBHd6RuKJi5 81+KoLLhbY+4pzmfh5YE++QROT0viTGJ8ZcCaBdvgKq6PYa4a7C301wsQ/rW98Olg6wI rQd1UiYNQrAiAfzhahfTDYseUnApTuo1/gYcgonlPgPrVH/O+GdxVWFp2T7IFdWXQ0il NGgTRxMssWQW4K22Z9FdjWRea3TxY1Ew+9z7GtZIs3aIyjoO/ixwnP4Yyx8HlbznB52w ggRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0KVb1DDOg3nKXNOdqz1/xSULg5OI/2O6gQMdRYIKOBIFUGrPnP 70IqTjEHjNlEKcG+R7IVGWrB67qce/8cTOdQAJod2Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIz1BY2P0pE8Oq0npt+aUl0eg4o1Xy7fdX9W3ugTXrDa+ULit3lLmj3BfwxuqrxBKuCF9b5wu8np4r6lu+BATQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9497:: with SMTP id c23mr5850795ljh.286.1585244692461; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9AA83737-63DF-4B4F-84FC-4BC6CAC7A50C@strayalpha.com> <20200325235405.GU30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com> <6f5c3f41-4440-b594-a82e-9a403fe77fe3@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBO2vapFY9nE_RTbw83tkfWT4aSCFk-7WsH6ctPQGvznkw@mail.gmail.com> <4EF33202-72A8-4E27-85BD-AAA716292C1A@fugue.com> <CABcZeBM7y+HwRbdd5L4VtFbzootG=soShHD39b36w2bkM75HKQ@mail.gmail.com> <F15C68BA-6D74-4B6C-8C6A-7C6BBD849AF2@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <F15C68BA-6D74-4B6C-8C6A-7C6BBD849AF2@fugue.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:44:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP0JM0JKqMqFKX4ROoztA_jPQTun_MFe0D0TK9=3FtfXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3157853192394695604=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 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.
>

You and the proponents should feel free to do so. However, at present, the
situation is that this proposal doesn't have anything like consensus (and
yes, that's because a number of us are of the opinion that no action is
needed) and so the burden on the proponents is to try to build that.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest