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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 16:14 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 4922A3A0772 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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 (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 xhxEaObbnAuW for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:42 -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 BE0C63A0C1D for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152CCF40713; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:31 -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 ED10BF40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 QkkGQHutcbIq for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5848EF40712 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02QGEYW2044796 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:14:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1585239276; bh=MifsqTesy+K+u6jmdvrTsGgftoIXz6qakwGRA4+9R3s=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=eFeqy5KCXfaR9DoLMmgZxHbvbwwftbtatCwdmyK6D6aifXUh5+ZdMaZ9MCTc8ABMq JIxrpKlnjy0lTRyoY4HCn/TkQrtfNitXRIrCVhb/7pyRpNEhmL7Ub+Bb2R0kR5L9Ug vG2AoP4tr1CZsIT062pc3xhYsmWWeKIGqZgW8K8s=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <0DC4AE68-8410-4B0A-BB27-62D409F16964@mnot.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <fc67a7bf-2cca-acb4-40dd-4609b2cb03b1@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:14:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0DC4AE68-8410-4B0A-BB27-62D409F16964@mnot.net>
Content-Language: en-US
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 3/25/2020 6:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> To expand on discussion a bit -- one of the things that kept on coming up was that "updated" was never well-defined, causing this confusion. So one approach we could take would be to_define it_.


I think that having 50 years of haphazard use of the term has thoroughly 
salted that particular patch of ground. We need a new term, and that's 
what Mirja's document proposes.

/a

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