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

Joseph Touch <> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E2A3A0DE6 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PWvQS2e6CsDn for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7659C3A0D81 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABDFF4070B; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F12F4070B for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuEks1TGtJvs for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14D9F406F7 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QosZY3wWQfGZHmcX0Aomyyn705ETLyOM2LsjLmJ/hp0=; b=u9t8DN/SpPYSaeawuh87PYgvn A1ITOzDzMg8CTSXSUt3+x48C+GDC01tLxs8GZ1XvAEPjPusyCiWda+9vfscuDVuwCphTH9V55kM9x xkdC+LrOPDU8VR58X+5SW5RgtN7j2RjRG0IBNA9C2p3QvjFrfg+k03EaDUu7NHfZARG9k0PKL+PAc 9vUYKjl4+4aU4OF7HqdV6Xzv1LLZ52mmbd0ZZGiXnpLKoIS7a/eqnvdlVkPaVuYjlFa/AwAKsk9VS EXKbpxXVI2lYvB4damD34J3KR+CMqgXMGP54CCZWGCGDui1g5ydbNZgUQln3ydKQvgI/hlnAV7wt/ 9lfEIthMA==;
Received: from ([]:54221 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jHFjJ-002x7o-H3; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:46:41 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:46:36 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than “Updated"

I’d start by asking that speaker to explain amended, emended, and updated.

Nuanced speakers will appreciate the difference; for most, IMO, “updated” covers everything needed and is much more commonly used. That helps for non-native speakers.

> For example, in IP multicast, we have this bible document RFC1112,
> where the rfc1112bis i would like to write (time perrmitting ;-)
> would mostly consist of removing 50% of the doc which specifies 
> what we would now call IGMPv1 - an obsolete protocol. To me,
> this rfc1112bis would well be characterized with the word "Updated",
> but not the word "Amended", because to me (non-native speaker),
> "Amended" sound a bit like "there is more" (not a lot less).

Amended can mean “puts right” or “updates” too. The 18th Amendment (literally) to the US constitution removed the right to manufacture and consume alcohol; the 21st Amendment restored it. 

In a sense, the first removed a right by adding a restriction, the second restored a right by undoing the first one in its entirety. Both are amendments, both figuratively and by name.

> Point 2: I am not sure the distinction between Amended and Extended is
> going to work well, because i can esily see a single follow-up RFC
> to do both. There may be one section, where a MUST statement
> refers and changes behavior that existed in the reference RFC
> and is therefore an "Amendment" MUST. Then there is a second
> feature introducing a new feature, which for this RFC is a MUST,
> so... how would i even distinguish these two MUST ? And it seems
> that a single Amendment MUST "kills" 20 new MUSTs that are
> Extensions.

All good reasons to just say “updates”.

Why are we spending more cycles on this??


rfc-interest mailing list