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

Joe Touch <> Thu, 26 March 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885B03A0D0A for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:28 -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 mRFr-t5pPC4q for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D2BA3A0D67 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B99F40719; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483D5F40716 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:12 -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 FzAcvewcrEhr for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC4EF40714 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=XMXx7tcsM8/+ilD37PoOgmzZij5gYosEKNzogyE1rho=; b=I6uquhWJfKnhPj0f8pkq9pUtY3 LxMertzSTTIzBa+oaiVYoSfTsZRA1/kstNIpvzqoz1ksfGkYxbuHdOsvOh9FDY1jRkTIYF4fMgpM1 OBAmrkMkkBsvBZBXjRWbkcLvzxt2PDtpZNUAC5lMImqZ48CVR07c8YpfojuZyYebSBNnRwAQ6Wrab FoQAk95ncAq1DwEBEe1qapYaSXuGD/abx+etWO+s5ys0xHzV56zVwC5gnLyLNaPZZeJOK+2jQHDPj SoKqnYNKEbo0mUd8+DMLjKjz+ov3yDv7jpPDb6iHyoyNnBbiYtZa3EkPtPe+555Q5z8HhnRuWHJqe wgIjgBGA==;
Received: from ([]:56936 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jHZ09-002yYO-CI; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:21:22 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:21:16 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E255)
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" <>

All true but then all reasons why nuanced definitions to dive into overlapping sub cases isn’t helpful. 

A single word or phrase is never enough. 


> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:45 AM, Joel Halpern Direct <> wrote:
> Joe, we all know that the formal words we use do not ahve the same meaning that they do in English.  Our standards are not, effectively, "requests for comment".  They are standards.
> We also know by observation that other people have understood "Updates" in ways that are different from how you understand it.  Claiming that the meaning as used for metadata on RFCs is "obvious to any English speaker" is contradicted by the observable facts.
> Yours,
> Joel
> On 3/26/2020 1:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
>>>> “Updates” means just that - it affects the base document in a way that
>>>> MIGHT be hazardous to ignore. That means you need to read the doc to
>>>> find out why, to what extent, and how that affects what you want to
>>>> do.
>>> I wonder if you can recognize that this might not be the only way it has been
>>> used in the past.  Maybe those uses were in error, but you've picked a
>>> particular definition that wasn't always applied.
>> I do. Adding terms doesn’t make that more clear or useful. Updates means changes of any nature that do not replace the prior RFC in its entirety.
>> If that isn’t obvious to any English speaker, then these nuanced other terms that subdivide that category further definitely will not help.
>> Joe

rfc-interest mailing list