IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 16:50 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 BE4483A08E2 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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=strayalpha.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 yN1q75KU-wau for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:17 -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 727EA3A0798 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4C1F40720; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:04 -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 4F439F40720 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:03 -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=strayalpha.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 4QHDeXlCB2Ww for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1FDF4071E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1A5JeQnNmlmOOmXl7As36s8ZIaCiCScV6e1KEo04L7M=; b=zjv0zPIpRoP0ME1bsiTFcoxXT wfsVAX4DKErzQ7DUHhl437HeNHOVKmO49DEldbz3ZLFunyRRaJz8keMUvq9s+4rwZKE0rrMpwmSbu r9rhpHW8xCsg6FTTd0KxW536X098FnlxgVi/BX1XgLKGEzPbaHzwAS9tvT9Vr8AKD/D6exdua7laG xNL17p6e5sM0cVPf9t/dDiedNvTee+AmliobxJG72iuUt1CVH/zVgqEPLhvQDAdvFm49/khGobrH0 gSGfzfxxEtKJwqYkt73o+qyXfe6OSiu2RutXLFiV7UgiC33/gqGy17/BZ8wm0Enke3W015LvD+qG4 M0l5fruFg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61612 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jHsBK-0048YQ-S8; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:50:11 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <149E0E3E-287F-44B5-997A-F9DEE24A87F9@cooperw.in>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:05 -0700
Message-Id: <173520E2-D3D7-4011-94BF-25831D2D1123@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9AA83737-63DF-4B4F-84FC-4BC6CAC7A50C@strayalpha.com> <20200325235405.GU30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com> <74a69204-481d-0c8e-a055-10956d9cefc1@joelhalpern.com> <29786.1585242645@localhost> <149E0E3E-287F-44B5-997A-F9DEE24A87F9@cooperw.in>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - rfc-editor.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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: "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>

+1

Less is more. If this sort of process change is sufficient, it seems a much less disruptive change than upending the currently very simple document marking set.

Joe

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:10 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> (wearing no hats, personal opinion only)
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> (We could have a moritorium on the IESG talking about Updates.)
> 
> Fully support this. The main reason the IESG talks about this a lot is because ADs question the use of the tag. In the absence of mutable documents and since we tried multiple times to see if there could be clarity in the community about what “updates” means and failed, we could just accept that it’s an unclear tag and stop discussing it. We could even document the moratorium in an IESG statement.
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email