[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag comments

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 25 March 2020 22:23 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913F73A0DB2 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XYKbW50MTbo8 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BFFD3A0D91 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FA2F406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE246F406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxVxOR_ABeAR for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4172F406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BD254804A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:23:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 989F2440040; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:23:25 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:23:25 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Message-ID: <20200325222325.GP30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag comments
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>
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>

I like to solve the problem. I am not sure the proposed solution is
sufficient though.

On the nitpicking style, i am not sure that the distinction of
New MUST -> Amends New "optional" is a good way to define
the distinctions:

If i was an operator, i would primarily like to understand the
interoperability effects. We the new document be expected to
interoperate in all circumstances with the old version RFC ?
Security Amendmends certainly will the need option to kill
backward compatibility (old RFC had a now broken security scheme).

I would feel a lot easier to conclude what would need to be
done if there was a collection of different example "use cases",
and challenge the community to come up with new "use cases" where
the proposed solution does not work well enough.

I "feel" that it would be better not to try to solve our issues
nly with as few as possible tags, but also ponder what a good
amendment/extensions text in an RFC should look like.
E.g.: separate section summarising "Changes" over the prior
RFC is IMHO a good approach.

"This rfc replaces the following text in prior RFC with the
text outlined in section xx of this rfc. This impacts
interoperability as follows".

Just an example.

rfc-interest mailing list