Re: [rfc-i] Immutability (was: on Rfced-future)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 06 April 2020 06:54 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 2E7513A0791; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, 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 0LjlxqVjVMoe; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:54:09 -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 48DF53A078F; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9813EF406C6; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:53:59 -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 7810BF406C6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:53:58 -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 czrEISdHx8H6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A2EF406C2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.112] (p548DCD70.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.205.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48wh8p6kskzydX; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:54:02 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200406025814.657EA17142E1@ary.qy>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:54:02 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 607848842.2923-2972096c36a87e1e6a8dccf3a7604601
Message-Id: <E2F472BE-9CBA-4967-92E0-EAECD5706E2B@tzi.org>
References: <20200406025814.657EA17142E1@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Immutability (was: on Rfced-future)
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>

On 2020-04-06, at 04:58, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If there isn't a v3.n sub-version number in the XML files today, there 
>>> certainly should be.</heresyAlert>
>> 
>> Is the date insufficient?  That is, we could decide to process a document by pretending that we have the
>> limited knowledge and tools of the date of publication.
> 
> If we're going to bite the bullet and join the world of updatable
> documents, we might as well use version numbers like everyone else
> does.

Well, everybody else is struggling to move from EcmaScript 6 to EcmaScript 2015.
This of course works best when the publishers have established a rhythm (e.g., every year, as in this case, or maybe twice a year).

(Date of publication ≠ date of tool interface in use, though.)

((There is an ongoing discussion of protocol versions, protocol features, and document revisions in T2TRG right now, so I couldn’t resist.  Oh, and for ECMAScript the number counts “editions”, a term I didn’t have in active use in that discussion yet.))

Grüße, Carsten

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