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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 26 March 2020 17:15 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 0EAF33A0938 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GPR5BEuAB9Td for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:59 -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 50FFD3A094F for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17CCF40710; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:47 -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 21495F406D1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 AUoBfPrpoXJr for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF6AF40710 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCFC38981; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F7EDCB; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:14:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <34CFA4E1-A253-49E4-A3E7-5EA7825AA153@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9AA83737-63DF-4B4F-84FC-4BC6CAC7A50C@strayalpha.com> <20200325235405.GU30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com> <74a69204-481d-0c8e-a055-10956d9cefc1@joelhalpern.com> <34CFA4E1-A253-49E4-A3E7-5EA7825AA153@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:14:42 -0400
Message-ID: <30855.1585242882@localhost>
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1202751358111185839=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Mar 25, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> The problem was to my mind very clearly stated.  We burn person-hours figuring out what we mean each time any document gets tagged this way. We want the relationship tags, so we can find things.  But our current "updates" tag has multiple meanings, so people get very confused.

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
    > Any of the proposed new tags arguably applies to many different
    > things. What’s the difference between extends and changes? When does a
    > change affect compatibility - only when it causes a failure or when it
    > causes a change of any kind?

It's great that you agree that we have to stop wasting hours on this :-)

Your proposal:
    > The only solution to understanding how one doc updates another is a
    > *discussion* in that doc.

    > “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.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



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