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

Toerless Eckert <> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A433A0442 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gVYVTHy_MtS for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B8843A053E for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81845F40712; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C368F40712 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HaZAgllr0rLu for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E45F4070B for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E89454804A; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:24:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 26BE3440040; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:24:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:24:51 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
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: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

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


On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:12:37PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> From: rfc-interest <> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
> Sent: 25 March 2020 22:41
> To:
> 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 mailing list