Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 07:21 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 3DA473A0CEB; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 md66yw0O4ZVU; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:53 -0800 (PST)
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 B79963A0CE5; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715D1F4076C; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:44 -0800 (PST)
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 BDD9FF4076C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 Tb5-KgRMp1m9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CECE3F40768 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lEoUR-0001X3-Eg; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:21:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:21:37 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <A4EA2D8C5B64754D875CD9D6@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <460bd02c-9027-dc3d-35b7-510ab60cb35e@huitema.net>
References: <mailman.1.1614024001.24742.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <7C7234B7EF4B131225B9C92E@PSB> <78399BE7-2519-45DA-9FEA-71D92E5549DC@tzi.org> <96AB7E5BDFAAF70FD1F3BB9D@PSB> <6034F22E.20707@btconnect.com> <CF48DDDD307045F4E6196892@PSB> <460bd02c-9027-dc3d-35b7-510ab60cb35e@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>


--On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 22:14 -0800 Christian Huitema
<huitema@huitema.net> wrote:

> On 2/23/2021 9:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> (2) References from RFCs.  These need to be, at least by
>> default, exact.  The flexibilities that are an advantage with
>> the above can be a liability here.  Why? Because it is not
>> unusual for the substantive content of an I-D to change as
>> work evolves and consensus emerges (or doesn't).  If, for
>> example, version NN of an I-D said "the outside of the
>> bikeshed MUST be painted blue", version NN+1 said "the
>> outside of the bikeshed MUST be painted lime green" and
>> explained why, it would be very important if an RFC that
>> referenced it for color choices point to the version the
>> RFC's author intended and not some other version.  Would it
>> be important for the reader to find out that there is a later
>> version in which things might have changed? Sometimes, but
>> only the document author is likely to know.
> 
> Or, take the example of an Internet draft that ends up
> abandoned. References to such drafts are not rare. Now, what
> is also not rare is for the author of the abandoned draft to
> come back and "tombstone" it. You certainly don't want the
> reference to magically be updated and point to the tombstone.

Indeed.
    john

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