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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 28 March 2020 00:57 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 BCF503A0DB9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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: 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 gABeR5HUPOfp for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:42 -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 83F193A0DAB for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2EDF4071E; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:29 -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 0E248F4071E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:28 -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 jDRpxxaLHk_1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58A35F40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id d37so4951585pgl.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d5OXqiBX7KTS+gE0uwWn9FtCkaQZCpSlaVQ/HzzAlts=; b=GAuk+b3VBt6IeFfwXw5p9u/xL7DzZDYXrBa9hSdUOOnZjwG5t7hTQJgYuRip8sp06p Wk3xxhtZY9gthgP8dIq2okSPBfj87c8Dkg4npRhuA1gr27k+e4POWWtMaZech00XXlec gwlI3mlntwdHSJc5NA7XMYzWbv52EWD2xpxBxNIt/Q+qa5d3fKOmpCd3akFLzm05uk4Y idMDjMzxH0UDEDVLYIm4Drr2+LSStq/uMw14HqG/jmItPhDRIiCgW+6EdBkLLxS4lm5w xiwKbVm3nRVxwst0FOxQwPbtowN+ZjDvgLRf1OhVXth55y/BxHCzIgNFTxHMOe84tfOI p6Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=d5OXqiBX7KTS+gE0uwWn9FtCkaQZCpSlaVQ/HzzAlts=; b=HXa/S279jXnd3Pq/dHGfatwiQDXGQckM5Bb9hE61WLDO/LsfFtwo0vV2QtKMPg9jyi TdpwuSpl8Za6/geAD2f8Z8u42QgSLehaV/3Ahxf9gNz8Z2yqHGghTQrsNqx4BUrotaSq BRedRVzviKdNmxroS4eDSV3KeNzhaQbBHUHwxr9QgaOmuIHrZYqPJ8seAGZDKbKpnVbp 6SOwkao5bZF4aEDzfNvptYSLYL2WKx9Xzvi0OCC21foSUwkRUhfTQOU5u4Ervp5+2/Or um3GeFZ97yCuANSRiMWQqi563G5GcvJgN09Hvzhp8OQRffzUXEh8qZsIWka7ay1U6dww HRNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ33O6UEBuZ/VrKHJYe1c8fP4ABD+TnAn6tY9ad5G3HQRE5WYkr8 IxxsgASemURvhfCT91PH6UyM3eIH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vudNzrVLlvFzmVEH8bG9PHvY53l63myidy2HvX0fVsyuKbQ9L+3rGSse1ID7ReG58Zri8YaRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:8948:: with SMTP id v69mr2004854pgd.318.1585357059458; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.25.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm4972253pfx.69.2020.03.27.17.57.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <12a72724-1a9b-f7fb-7357-d594c1fe385a@gmail.com> <5EEF29D7-FC0A-4168-AF1A-758FCF9EEB3C@strayalpha.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71d8d8d3-3c43-c043-658a-e65e3ff4bc98@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:33 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5EEF29D7-FC0A-4168-AF1A-758FCF9EEB3C@strayalpha.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <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>

On 28-Mar-20 11:44, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27-Mar-20 16:48, Joseph Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Draft-tsvwg-udp-options - does what?
>>>>>    - it extends UDP with options
>>>>>    - but it also alters UDP to prohibit UDP length values that 786 allows
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that extends or emends?
>>>>
>>>> Both. Why would it be a problem to use both tags if they both apply?
>>>
>>> What’s the point? Why the nuance?
>>
>> Personally, I don't think that the difference between"You need to write some new code."
>> and
>> "You need go and fix your old code."
>> is just a nuance. Product managers may view these as two totally
>> different matters with different business implications.
> 
> Right.  Adding features means just adding code.  Right.  

Ultimately, yes. If the base protocol has hooks for extensibility and the base code is well designed, that is. But regardless, in corporate software, it may mean having the software touched by the team in Banaglore vs the team in North Carolina, or whatever. These really are different things.

> Must be sunny there.  

Yes, thanks, it is!

   Brian

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