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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 03:40 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 1311B3A0968 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.429 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, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=joelhalpern.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 98gP2jdWIpH9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:40 -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 5F29D3A08C7 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EE3F406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:29 -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 4A0E6F406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PP0474Rf66PQ for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95334F406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48nrNf2WM5z1ntJ2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1585194034; bh=J7e47Xus9njmN71JfNUsUH+K9FDCJEd+r1O1ZtAq2iM=; h=Subject:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aW6ZYO2Tme+rEeDeXBpCz4VHA1mjJWvxuosPl51i4a8eyzuLy+APNjmfL8PTtHu+S pePHfg/KLV3vPUzyHBW0VCpQTXxgMUoNfLE5D3vV28nQ9b1vsnI94+LoA4LU28yzEk 9BgEG0ebJYv3F3hZXMbBkE7g3AHD3lRXLy4pkB4w=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48nrNd6hqhz1nt2f for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <74a69204-481d-0c8e-a055-10956d9cefc1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:40:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

The problem was to my mind very clearly stated.  We burn person-hours 
figuring out what we mean each time any document gets tagged this way. 
We want the relationship tags, so we can find things.  But our current 
"updates" tag has multiple meanings, so people get very confused.

One choice would be to explicitly document all the meanings we use it 
for, and say "this is what it means.  Sorry."

We could, I suppose, pick a single definition for "updates" and say that 
from here on, that is what it means.  This has the drawback of leaving 
outside folks confused as they will not know know of any flag day of 
meaning change.  And leaves us with no coverage for the other meanings.

We could make up new terms, and try to specify more clearly their 
meaning.  We then document that older documents used "updates" with a 
range of meanings, and newer documents use "foo" and "bar" with the 
following definitions that the community (presumably) has agreed and 
which are more clear.  (Nothing is perfect, it is human language.)  That 
is, as I understand it, what the document in front of us attempts to start.

I am sure that there are other choices.  (We are much too clever.)  But 
I would prefer not to stick my head in the sand and pretend something 
that regularly causes this much confusion is just fine.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/25/2020 11:21 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2020, at 4:54 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>> ...
>> So the logic seems to be "Amended" would NOT have a clear difference
>> in meaning over "Updated" unless you try to go into gory
>> details.
> 
> Doesn’t help even if you do.
> 
> Amended means changed (presumably for the better).
> 
> Updated literally means ‘newer’.
> 
> Even native-speaking English nit-pickers would have a hard time arguing the difference, except when trying to fit a crossword clue.
> 
>> The main reason for changing words is to support a
>> change in semantic.
> 
> In that regard, it fails.
> 
> What PROBLEM is driving this?
> 
> Can we please STOP burning person-hours on this sort of nonsense?
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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