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

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:57 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 252233A07A9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:57:15 -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=cisco.com header.b=Is4Wuk98; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=h01hDBnV
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 hDvfdTt_gKxa for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:57:13 -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 0D3B33A03FF for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B81FF406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:57:02 -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 D9C84F406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:57:00 -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=cisco.com header.b=Is4Wuk98; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=h01hDBnV
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 UGXGYcv2nCEV for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D293FF406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3970; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585180627; x=1586390227; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2ICkMui3N9+7OwSLPOhH08Z+kskUS4mHC6ZkzbZGZEQ=; b=Is4Wuk98PUFFprKPN7hldluMOhhamxnltbB2aoLuOOw8lz6Icfr8ZiRa VJcHbWWDPfkEx89buwSzVtI1Z9IM+Mlmk9RZtix1IufuHdnegMTFu+czR fWTGMguQEIu779KNc5MwsUwXLly3LQgnK07bMOtc+2nxJZNPBFp8EWbVQ 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AT7X8VB/Fd/jeKP9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+8ZB7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVdSaCEnnK/jCZC0hF8MEX1hgrDm2?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CvAAB87nte/4MNJK1mGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gVRQBWxYIAQLKodeA4p1gl+JbI4yglIDVAo?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEMAQEYCwoCBAEBhEQCgigkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYMhWMBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEBARAoBgEBLAsBCwQCAQgOAwQBAQEeECEGCx0IAgQOBQgagwWCSwMOIAE?= =?us-ascii?q?Oo08CgTmIYoIngn8BAQWFKw0LggwDBoE4jC8agUE/gRFHgk0+ghtJAYFog0G?= =?us-ascii?q?CLJcTmFAyRAqCPJJLhFqCTJkSkGGJd5AtAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIoFYcBU7gmx?= =?us-ascii?q?QGA2OHYNzhRSFQXQCgSeNaQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,306,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="730689909"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 25 Mar 2020 23:57:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02PNv57Z000525 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:57:06 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:57:05 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:57:05 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:57:05 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Dby5Cp4CEicQKWjKY/zNp+yRcedczvypeK6WJ5lrszTNzzyH4H1TySwOIQtipGY6480sMoUDZLuM9jLyXVPkY3hokxfsyyHYRTtsTR0aNJB3huYl0W2gTMVyxQ2/yjQS6kjqDvCt2gGEgTESAylJkPhzLsXguYVYnRCXP1eihRdZlk7/M8dBtMKoFcKG/+QNcMJKt8T32HcTCADASbH6m9syJC53yMTgsu0yQ9Wgixs/c7KtKrJ3V+xmDVNtIxoGvxIMZjya/Q5TDrHB0HNuX41f1E2eQA2vPGhyhArkvmMmdXXQGKjqG0P0VdXDAaCUXmCvVtKRy7CTzNdVpSkr4g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=L5D0a1xS706KMMOpsR2twC0sWtP0Zub8rsOwmL1eXLA=; b=jzN4xOiuIz4BmMfb0lzepwxsc+wEoJdg2GHfRjoIGh/ChhPMGA4w0PTnOgEqvtkVd7COBJrPJiHVyJja+FEhfzfCpqszQ2Kr1+CBERcpYm5uwing3KKuBAHWXpwTo0P/Npn+rhTZVaD8+t7JGuQ4ZNek/xJ2ZftcbO/D7d/egB4uzFFbT5Wj0RlRqF0EhldHjribPGR9hcK98b6lyn/JWg+oHwb3KJrGkugc2NoimO5cwU5egtZJv1akmWrRpeVY9bC1xEANC6R4PA7/ujHBSGztb1NKF9UFx7DfBkoP3fQWw8I3siaPsPOjqhZKS39XP2rmdi1yIR1zN8fRkCWfWQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=L5D0a1xS706KMMOpsR2twC0sWtP0Zub8rsOwmL1eXLA=; b=h01hDBnVn1Sd39/5i2DTFqx6y48PEqms5Wdma2uBxniK0jBZLUjacZykz3vA/bsHsfKjY4vyFA/U0OqfXGQ3P/diPW50UtczHYpH3AI05syYt3HVvwVTIxm1qvQW2zzBMIleYzcmyX5VlcfkO7eLKWlQde62LBKuDdngr8X2biM=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by MN2PR11MB3885.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:151::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2835.22; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:57:04 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3:2164:a8e2:33b3]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3:2164:a8e2:33b3%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2835.023; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:57:04 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
Thread-Index: AQHWAvaaMxeoHqG97k6dhpr74g7STahZ7pOggAAEqYCAAAS9wA==
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:57:04 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB43667A280E3CC3B86980647FB5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1003::1a9]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 14a039eb-6d91-4de2-d538-08d7d11837dc
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3885:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3885CADE2CCDB4A983149341B5CE0@MN2PR11MB3885.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0353563E2B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(15650500001)(316002)(54906003)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(186003)(66476007)(7696005)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(55016002)(66946007)(71200400001)(9686003)(2906002)(86362001)(5660300002)(8936002)(76116006)(33656002)(52536014)(478600001)(6506007)(53546011)(4326008)(6916009)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3885; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: GiFkJ+VG8Gne+gqCDousE7dMFt4bcNfOW4Ct+fdgSGcJfosfqMM3a/BySzvdoqoxNHPOFQ2qt+6zc2RW2wYma6wfcrpDR20C+b0xv1qV2Fw6lUX2ZT60b6ExhW7mrGfOhjC8t+O9R9eFujvgbLbiZc0GGyYVJsQgn8BaD0+JeAc=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 14a039eb-6d91-4de2-d538-08d7d11837dc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Mar 2020 23:57:04.1564 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: DNLq0J9qVT6oapoJmRyn3CBs0feakvOLsR8i8BzPvr2PxkopdpfXoZZtVLxwCiKxNuk2esMpXWX4JzF1a7SE7w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3885
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.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>
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>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
> Sent: 25 March 2020 23:25
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>om>; rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
> 
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than "Updated"
[RW]
I'm not sure that "Amended" is significantly better than "Updated".

I think that the reason why a new term was suggested was to allow "updated" to have an ambiguous meaning but give "amended" a precise meaning.

I would just stick with the "Updated" tag but define/clarify its meaning going forward.


> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
[RW]
I think that it would be fine for an RFC to both "Update/Amend" (if it is changing existing functionality) and also "Extend" (if it extends the base spec with new functionality).

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:12:37PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of
> > Martin Duke
> > Sent: 25 March 2020 22:41
> > To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > Subject: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
> >
> > What I was going to say in the queue:
> >
> > Like mnot, I think Updated should mean "Amended". It may be worth it to
> change the term just to create awareness to tighten the meaning.
> > [RW]
> > +1 to Updated meaning Amended, but I think that we could keep the tag
> name the same, but just specify exactly what its behaviour is.
> >
> > But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee
> foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references
> before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of
> these categories will encourage people to use them.
> > [RW]
> > I like the idea of ???Extends??? but not ???Extended By???.  I.e. I
> think that it is useful for an RFC to indicate which base spec it is
> extending, but I don???t think that the base spec needs to indicate which
> optional RFCs it has been extended by.
> >
> > If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through
> time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed
> the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and
> informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.
> > [RW]
> > I see ???Extends??? as something different to Normative reference.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it
> done.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> --
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest