[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft
ekr at rtfm.com (Eric Rescorla) Sat, 29 February 2020 13:50 UTC
From: "ekr at rtfm.com"
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 05:50:36 -0800
Subject: [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft
In-Reply-To: <AB0B3305-FCEC-48E6-A916-B86245CD1C3E@gmail.com>
References: <447718E1-D2EF-41B1-94DD-AB121EAA79BB@gmail.com> <179BB23D-825A-4177-B656-1B396903C7D8@gmail.com> <CABcZeBODoQTd+fdgqpLwXWhE5P35gTN5S-3zN5+_+7Mcb4PbzQ@mail.gmail.com> <AB0B3305-FCEC-48E6-A916-B86245CD1C3E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMCZfSxTXUj0+Kuy2QJi+vJHcPpWjydobTD4ztuzTR2rQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:48 AM Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ekr, > > > On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > At present, I am not in favor of these changes. > > > > We already spend quite a bit of time debating which tags should apply > when compared to the (IMO marginal) value of these tags, and this seems > likely to make that worse. > > > > The "amended" tag in particular seems like a workaround for our refusal > to simply update RFCs when they are wrong. The first rule of holes to stop > digging. > > The option to bis the RFCs will still exist and the IESG can still guide > people to do that. The goal of the Amended tag is to point implementers to > other RFCs that are mandatory to implement. Right now Updates is being used > both for optional extensions as well as for mandatory changes and the goal > is to disambiguate this. > I'm not talking about -bising the RFC. I'm talking about re-publishing with the same RFC #. More generally, I don't really understand what you think "mandatory" means. Consider two cases: 1. We publish an RFC X with a clear mistake. For instance, it allocates two code points, A and B, and then in the text it says A=1 and B=2 but in the IANA considerations it says A=1, B=1. 2. We publish an RFC X with an algorithm we later determine to be bad. For instance it says to use a parameter 2 but we later determine that 2 is bad and 3 would be better. In the former case, I would argue that the RFC correctly read had the code points A=1 B=2 and thus in order to be conformant with RFC X, you need to adopt B=2. However, what would you say in the latter case? Older implementations continue to be conformant with RFC X, but just not with RFC Y, which you publish later. So, what does "mandatory" mean in this case? The problem here, as usual, is the failure to have some way to refer to the concept of the protocol rather than the concept of the RFC. -Ekr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200229/f0257e93/attachment.html>
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Suresh Krishnan
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Suresh Krishnan
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Stephen Farrell
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Paul Kyzivat
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Julian Reschke
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Robert Sparks
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Stephen Farrell
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Mirja Kuehlewind
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Mirja Kuehlewind
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Eric Rescorla
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Donald Eastlake
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Suresh Krishnan
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Suresh Krishnan
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Eric Rescorla
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Carsten Bormann
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Eric Rescorla
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Ekkarat Wareesing
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Carsten Bormann
- [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft Eric Rescorla