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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 26 March 2020 01:56 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 011493A0860 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:56:00 -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 J7OkHNb-hkJH for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:49 -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 1D5E83A0863 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A5CF406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:33 -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 D930EF406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:31 -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 gfA0_SB4ZFXY for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EAA7F406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E3F38982; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0447547; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:55:28 -0400
Message-ID: <29013.1585187728@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="===============7077448620667533260=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
    > But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee
    > foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references
    > before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these
    > categories will encourage people to use them.

I am generally in agreement with you.

    > If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through
    > time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed
    > the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and
    > informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.

What if we had two kinds of normative reference?

    > TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.

... so that the citation tool could link forward intelligently.
Otherwise RFC793-like issue can occur for many documents.

--
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