Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag
Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Sat, 14 August 2021 05:21 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 C233F3A07F7; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 xo3NeJKu8aCX; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:37 -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 86B643A07F2; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D1EF4080B; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:20:59 -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 D5FE4F4080B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GHQ0tGwLTAlD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A485F40803 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id j1so18394641pjv.3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=marmJATgVIAqPecjdkKduPSyQJE/Al6DaCGt2xSDYz0=; b=LEbENqcWpMHBu2TJk6J065Z9R9GwdrSef3hGTrjWZaBNPsq9UCeNG60VNTnmhZF06B NuWOYiYdZNbci+qx3Omk9l3bU0dFZG9Ky0wn0rHj+sT8n3OHps5rhQdzhF6/cTrqvxxA MlEgvLz7oNZIUAUNRh/fQm7rr92Rk7VCBvkxoOQu+rsrytt1e6Y60Y6G+olt0YlTphp1 ygrRfuVswz4fmNHdfJiKLsGAaqE0hRqeBvdLs+Qd9jgPXputQoBq1wAegsvd+3qAjIJT hEnGtNiXLu/9OhcVI1D6izgFEII6G7d4Gj8hiX8/cHjXtR67bBEzlxOrlB07KNsBe5Tx oluw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=marmJATgVIAqPecjdkKduPSyQJE/Al6DaCGt2xSDYz0=; b=nKNXlQdCh9iWbVXgcmdv3A1BwjZY/D91sBtKOt5qugP8eH1eL2MoDC1/KWrZj4Sazv 4nhmITMxvFlu2ECzm5VoJo0PjMklH/HANlbUMGrGSEDFFTlHUidr8fSIAhvLMZjPv1+d peUl89sugocYGAy9dKuSJYqo3vLTHsCLBtLU2sKpQGKRK9BE5Pexl2pYiMMSLonrVsMC rLynwK66AuVrs5VUpaCC6c/lg5EdkT6YRFFrREnTeljiL29lKZuaVxppDxJQnofNukzJ ugM/yrjpRuW6rZ4evr/LFbMPh9W3VI/TtJNYve7qSDDAqqafafjG16vx0HY7/CBGVIdJ VKhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532VxYdWVKEooIsaluvWoZ3nyYp4vCp9Xe+ehqpBfjzyr2tE+U+0 OqzfTojsrJvr7DIiXuomrHM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMkTX/rLfJK6c6iwps5O5kskSKVh/wN2UFM+JKHOipAkoBw79+sAyHaP5tDTcV3gaqAaH7EA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4682:: with SMTP id h2mr5497698pgr.409.1628918488259; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-73-158-116-21.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.158.116.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c21sm3974734pfo.193.2021.08.13.22.21.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <BD1DFC5C-CE5A-451F-9BB1-8B746FC135B9@kuehlewind.net> <14f6c9c3-d581-c55e-a4e0-a788a6a0480b@nostrum.com> <6d1b1023-062e-08cc-4162-fd4490c0aab2@gmail.com> <4C2ACE06-32D6-446C-BF94-CB34B46EA8E6@mnot.net> <be412a81-2c38-d67b-091e-bbd5fb2d954e@gmail.com> <76E7AC83-79E7-45C8-9A58-8729B1ED3075@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <76E7AC83-79E7-45C8-9A58-8729B1ED3075@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:21:26 -0700
Message-ID: <01b801d790cc$3baf47b0$b30dd710$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKyIJsk1jypyLy7irpfXQjfQtcgcgG7hxr9AnsOtiQCbCBomAKVtgjPAWqyBnypaDQVgA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
This is a road we've been down before: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-html/ https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Overview.html I think one might have more luck defining relationships between Standards STD n and Versions of them, and BCPs, which contain References to RFCs ( rather than between RFCs newer to older). While RFC NNNN doesn't change STD MMM and BCP MMM can (and should). You could experiment with more meta-data-driven relationships. Probably you would have to define metadata for intent to update a Standard or BCP, especially when a Standard makes use of a RFCbis. Larry -- https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Mark > Nottingham > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 8:51 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> > Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag > > That seems reasonable, although I'd think we shouldn't modify rfc-index.xml > itself during an experiment, since many others are likely to rely upon that > format. > > Cheers, > > > > On 14 Aug 2021, at 1:09 pm, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 14-Aug-21 13:17, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Where does "the metadata" live? > > > > As far as I can tell, they live in > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc-index.xml, and its companion > > /rfc-index.xsd, with a rendered version in /rfc-index.txt > > > > You will see, for example, that <see-also> is already implemented. I think it > would be ten minutes work to add the other suggestions in draft- > kuehlewind-update-tag to the schema. > > > > I do agree with Robert's argument that we need to experiment, but I > > don't want to see debris from the experiment in published RFCs. I > > would suggest doing an experimental enhancement of rfc-index.xml. Try it > out first on say ten recent RFCs which contain "Updates:". > > > > If that seems to work we could experiment with an RFC Metadata section > > in the final draft, to be deleted by the RFC Editor (like the > > Implementation Status section). > > Apart from that, the IESG has been asking for years that drafts > > explain exactly what they update in earlier RFCs. This isn't really new at all; > the only new bit would be to clarify whether the update is Amends, Extends > or occasionally See Also. > > > > Brian > > > > P.S. Question to the RFC Editor: Is there a reason that > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc29 does not show "See also: RFC > > 28"? RFC 29's meta-data include <see-also> > > <doc-id>RFC0028</doc-id> > > </see-also> > > > > > >> > >> If it's in the XML, it's immutable. > >> > >> If it's in the published text and HTML but not in the XML, that > >> implies > > that it's collected somewhere else, or it's truly ephemeral. > >> > >> Just a thought: Maybe we should consider creating an IANA RFC metadata > registry? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >>> On 14 Aug 2021, at 6:58 am, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Robert, you say > >>> > >>>> Instead of pursuing a change to the published metadata at this > >>>> time, > >>> > >>> It occurs to me that changing the *metadata* for a published RFC, > >>> and changing it back at the end of an experiment, is not a problem. > >>> But we can never change the text of a published RFC. It's > >>> unfortunate that the current "Updates:" is both metadata and > >>> immutable text. Of course, an "Update Considerations" section (and > >>> its evil twin "Extension Considerations") would be part of the immutable > text. > >>> > >>> What is wrong with a pure metadata experiment, which is reversible? > >>> Continue to use immutable "Updates" in the text, but split it into > >>> two in the metadata? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Brian Carpenter > >>> > >>> On 14-Aug-21 02:00, Robert Sparks wrote: > >>>> I plan to put together a draft on this topic, but will not be able > >>>> to > > do > >>>> so until a couple of weeks from now. This is one of the things I > >>>> intended to say in that draft: > >>>> > >>>> Instead of pursuing a change to the published metadata at this > >>>> time, I strongly suggest focusing the experiment on whether the > >>>> desired improvement in clarity can be achieved with prose. For the > >>>> first experiment, add a "Updates Consideration" near the beginning > >>>> to any document that might have used the new tags whether it uses > >>>> the Updates tag or not. Have the IESG ensure there is IETF > >>>> consensus on what the prose in that section says. If it turns out > >>>> that the text to put there becomes obvious and is easy to > >>>> mechanically create, then we know what > > we > >>>> need to do with the metadata. If we continue to have long > >>>> discussions > > > >>>> during evaluation about what the section should say, we know we > >>>> need to > >>> > >>>> do something more than pursue this particular classification scheme. > >>>> > >>>> I think running that for a year and reporting on what was learned > >>>> would > >>> > >>>> be a great help to this conversation. > >>>> > >>>> To be clear, this only addresses one part of the problem that I > >>>> think > > > >>>> really underlies the discomfort you are working to relieve. If your > >>>> initial reaction is "but nobody's going to see that section", > >>>> you're feeling one of the other problems. Working this one out first is > important. > >>>> > >>>> RjS > >>>> > >>>> On 8/13/21 7:03 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Based on the latest discussion at the gendispatch meeting, I’m > >>> moving this discussion back to the rfc-interest mailing list (with > gendispatch in bbc only for this initial information). > >>>>> > >>>>> Also based on the discuss at the gendispatch meeting, I opened a > couple of issues on GitHub: > >>>>> > >>>>> #13 Run this as an experiment or propose as BCP? > >>>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/13 > >>>>> > >>>>> #14 Limit to IETF stream for now? > >>>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/14 > >>>>> > >>>>> #15 Do we need "see also”? > >>>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/15 > >>>>> > >>>>> #16 How many tags to use? > >>>>> https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/16 > >>>>> > >>>>> Please klick on these links to see a bit more description for each > >>>>> issue. Feel free to comment on GitHub or here by email. If you > >>>>> reply by email, if possible please reply separately per issue and > >>>>> adjust the subject > > line accordingly. > >>>>> > >>>>> The impression I got from the meeting, is that many/most people > >>>>> agree that there is _a_ problem but there is a lot of different > >>>>> views how to address it (see issue #16 above). I don’t think there > >>>>> is one best > > solution at this point and as such this draft is proposing one of them > > as a way forward. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, given there is no clear single path forward I also got > >>>>> the impression that people would be more happy with starting an > >>>>> experiment rather than picking one approach and go for BCP right > >>>>> away. How the experiment might exactly look like needs a bit more > >>>>> work (see issue #13), however, > >>> if people think that's the right way forward, I'm happy to work on more > details. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we run this an experiment, I think it actually could be nice to > >>>>> start it now (and potentially only for the IETF stream; see issue > >>>>> #14) and > > then reevaluate as soon as the new RFC editor model and another > > discussion > >>> venue for these kind of works is in place. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let us know if you have any thoughts and provide input on > >>>>> these > >>> issues by email or on GitHub! > >>>>> > >>>>> Mirja > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> rfc-interest mailing list > >>>>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rfc-interest mailing list > >>>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rfc-interest mailing list > >>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > >> > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-updat… Brian E Carpenter