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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 27 March 2020 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759403A08CC for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RGb6l0f05dlW for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9702C3A0825 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7349CF4071D; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01980F4071D for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSKXZRhHMZhs for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF178F40719 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h72so3726257pfe.4 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k9ZwDNrqNY2HOLiAGN5zfCDU6/g5amMDhLJIM7ofU5k=; b=ZiuutGV6nPt8Yr3naMkH10JzomJsi37o37LQVVdtk59Qzk6nIfR0pIbbDHbiwA6U64 a0X34tg2/pqHQ1ffoFAYsRefRROXHITpup9fy8e5w7XvEjVOgH/ni5S8kZUufgzK4IrP p5SOXYnBW3ERo8MjbXA88PeG4B+Nm4HdgHzTujggWVv/ntdT1hnSrWfPmPNAH8unpXJi ctuf/NAtWKxL7EEArOFMm0sCsA/B/ouC7UWDh6m62Mw0yL+g6H98sQPT8huaMt4IDUYT S+I9WO945JW6FiubX6C3eNJum3tgWC1Oho0J91t63dR5B4Evs3eQBhG0+sA6pvJ7TzXy uwvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=k9ZwDNrqNY2HOLiAGN5zfCDU6/g5amMDhLJIM7ofU5k=; b=a5T3OsAIsLkx4nmwau1Xn+prQaWL6v/lrgQPF5NfaJ0lkrzEcIqBVyMdlnZOY7bgL2 X7WEWfxt+T98nfxZF6pQR+FdX2QpU5Ym6ii0NgGcI/8ddlDsMhVC4kyVVDD0X3SmigqE mGNCyuBnSFJdX1FFxvaHCxPpdkT9aJYEwUlnO4bPy9iyL12Fg5R/BTWo36Bvhd1X0s/I NtRYU5SVqrqhOe3X8AC/Avth8TpwmyUFXBohwMfjsqpN0UYRac6zKojpEeNXe8jc7Ziy fF0qeE9YOX0CQch+FML2D4yedr6hFi1pnNbrJKabPk2Lwx5owufNgzfgfvejACYFhEz7 4DwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2W6KCe9oBcYYJwB+EnWlsBylr2vkg494yCVaJhC4zlBWQtQvpP EDunbBc91VvC6mQYING824o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vugBUr08BOHWL/nSW2oDfTxiyVKrnwbjX9Ygbc3SABVPo42cIYuHMJrs+khg3ch0z0GhLYvvw==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5905:: with SMTP id f5mr10867317pgu.87.1585273440843; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id x4sm1969576pga.54.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eric Rescorla <>, Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:43:55 +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: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: "" <>, Toerless Eckert <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On 27-Mar-20 06:44, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> You and the proponents should feel free to do so. However, at present, the situation is that this proposal doesn't have anything like consensus (and yes, that's because a number of us are of the opinion that no action is needed) and so the burden on the proponents is to try to build that.

It doesn't have consensus, but the question (when it gets to Last Call) is whether it has rough consensus.

fwiw I agree that there is a manifest problem with ambiguous use of Updates and I think that the proposed solution is good.

On 26-Mar-20 11:41, Martin Duke 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.

I very much doubt it. At the moment RFC793 shows:
"Updated by: 1122, 3168, 6093, 6528"
Whether those are amendments or extensions I don't know. Certainly it's incomplete; for example RFC7474 amends RFC793. And so what anyway? If an important RFC like 793 is amended or extended by 50 RFCs, that should definitely be in the metadata.

"See Also" would rarely be needed, I think, and its usage would be curated
by the IESG.

Stay well,
rfc-interest mailing list