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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:40 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 404603A079C for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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 vJdz2nrbb83U for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:13 -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 AA5263A077E for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF48F406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:57 -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 0FEF0F406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:57 -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 AfZKYfSAD973 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4FF3F406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3854854804A; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:39:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 2A14F440040; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:39:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:39:58 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20200325233958.GT30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Btw: My example is not what i actually wanted to do, the 'bis'
of course typically means you have all the text and fully replace
the prior RFC. So let me correct the example:

if instead of a 'bis' document, one would do a
document that just has a sentence "sections X, Y, Z of reference
RFC are obsole and MUST NOT be implemented".

Thats what i think is an Update, but doesn't sound like an "Amendment"
to me.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:24:51AM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> significantly better than "Updated"
> 
> For example, in IP multicast, we have this bible document RFC1112,
> where the rfc1112bis i would like to write (time perrmitting ;-)
> would mostly consist of removing 50% of the doc which specifies 
> what we would now call IGMPv1 - an obsolete protocol. To me,
> this rfc1112bis would well be characterized with the word "Updated",
> but not the word "Amended", because to me (non-native speaker),
> "Amended" sound a bit like "there is more" (not a lot less).
> 
> Point 2: I am not sure the distinction between Amended and Extended is
> going to work well, because i can esily see a single follow-up RFC
> to do both. There may be one section, where a MUST statement
> refers and changes behavior that existed in the reference RFC
> and is therefore an "Amendment" MUST. Then there is a second
> feature introducing a new feature, which for this RFC is a MUST,
> so... how would i even distinguish these two MUST ? And it seems
> that a single Amendment MUST "kills" 20 new MUSTs that are
> Extensions.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:12:37PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
> > Sent: 25 March 2020 22:41
> > To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > Subject: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
> > 
> > What I was going to say in the queue:
> > 
> > Like mnot, I think Updated should mean "Amended". It may be worth it to change the term just to create awareness to tighten the meaning.
> > [RW]
> > +1 to Updated meaning Amended, but I think that we could keep the tag name the same, but just specify exactly what its behaviour is.
> > 
> > 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. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these categories will encourage people to use them.
> > [RW]
> > I like the idea of ???Extends??? but not ???Extended By???.  I.e. I think that it is useful for an RFC to indicate which base spec it is extending, but I don???t think that the base spec needs to indicate which optional RFCs it has been extended by.
> > 
> > If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.
> > [RW]
> > I see ???Extends??? as something different to Normative reference.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

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