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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 26 March 2020 17:10 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 441823A094D for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oz7JcGk1AQpQ for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:50 -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 E73C13A085C for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EF2F40710; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:38 -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 6829DF40710 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:37 -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 P58dyBWgwq0g for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74409F406D1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF9038981; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C31DCB; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:10:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rfc-interest\@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <74a69204-481d-0c8e-a055-10956d9cefc1@joelhalpern.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>
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 13:10:45 -0400
Message-ID: <29786.1585242645@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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5620148081670829647=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

(I always listen when Joel speaks, he rarely speaks for fun)

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.

I agree strongly with this as the problem statement.

    > We could make up new terms, and try to specify more clearly their meaning.
    > We then document that older documents used "updates" with a range of
    > meanings, and newer documents use "foo" and "bar" with the following
    > definitions that the community (presumably) has agreed and which are more
    > clear.  (Nothing is perfect, it is human language.)  That is, as I understand
    > it, what the document in front of us attempts to start.

There is a further choice which there wasn't time/place to talk about
yesterday.    I would like WGs that have the time, to be able to go back and
clarify what their Updates actually mean.

If we are going to do a survey, we basically need to do that *anyway*.

    > I am sure that there are other choices.  (We are much too clever.)  But I
    > would prefer not to stick my head in the sand and pretend something that
    > regularly causes this much confusion is just fine.

+1
(We could have a moritorium on the IESG talking about Updates.)

--
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