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

Joseph Touch <> Fri, 27 March 2020 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28C53A053E for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_7itNQzqhsQ for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB50C3A0528 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A46F4071E; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC35F4071E for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:10 -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 pCCd8fJDN0gi for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4023CF40714 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=32NkrXrgrHc6zcaXS6pbZEeTicau2ya3uasR8TeFhvY=; b=Ahnnd+JCZHiQOly87APj2BOhc y9EqDXM8BmrjpHWvLtalOtx6PKoi8gb2Lwb60vbL23mnsMQloS5VELfS5I9Wza9NJjynTeLBiWe3f 8EP1uJglx3/TtR4O14XHoNE5gDybkxCWfI68702Yw72YqPmas9971H0KO4LwWwXbdlM5Xg91jVu8+ 8Ooougqm33etMUILDOLMxyPZVHsFaqMTOO+M8E/uvOaxhgF1OqzQb6dhxLfaMWhf2eDQ2DCdjdkPh /EfcFvp4p5oE16rDrb9q5eFINjepH6v0vdGbrFWkVaV81k/wbPjKYwK0ziKJ0OB23nCLXVEn5V9OM oh71nS0hQ==;
Received: from ([]:57246 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jHfFB-001MLc-Ms; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 23:01:18 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:01:12 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> ekr,
> 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.

How about giving us some concrete examples? Or perhaps the authors could (should)?

> 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.

And that’s part of the point. It isn’t clear. It never will be.

What does 

> Certainly it's incomplete; for example RFC7474 amends RFC793.

How so? It doesn’t even cite it or use the term “TCP”. You meant RFC7414 maybe?

> And so what anyway? If an important RFC like 793 is amended or extended by 50 RFCs, that should definitely be in the metadata.

7414 doesn’t itself update or emend anything.  It lists things that update, emend, or do both to 793.

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?

I’d really llke to see a list of *ALL* current “updates” and a proposed disposition to each as whether it uniquely and unambiguously extends or emends (or see also).

If the authors can’t present that, then they have failed to demonstrate that their “solution” is a step in the right direct.

We’ll wait.

rfc-interest mailing list