Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Wed, 24 February 2021 06:14 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 A771E3A0809; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 QL-IfIs_lEd8; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:34 -0800 (PST)
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 ACC2A3A07E6; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FDCF40762; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:25 -0800 (PST)
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 9122AF40762 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:24 -0800 (PST)
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 zScVoYNMGeX2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A34F40723 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xse36.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.36] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx135.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1lEnRJ-000xkk-Lv for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:14:27 +0100
Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DllxX1Yjqz16J2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.16] (helo=xmail06.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1lEnRI-00063S-34 for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:24 -0800
Received: (qmail 27563 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2021 06:14:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.46.189]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail06.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; 24 Feb 2021 06:14:22 -0000
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <mailman.1.1614024001.24742.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <7C7234B7EF4B131225B9C92E@PSB> <78399BE7-2519-45DA-9FEA-71D92E5549DC@tzi.org> <96AB7E5BDFAAF70FD1F3BB9D@PSB> <6034F22E.20707@btconnect.com> <CF48DDDD307045F4E6196892@PSB>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Message-ID: <460bd02c-9027-dc3d-35b7-510ab60cb35e@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:14:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CF48DDDD307045F4E6196892@PSB>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.36
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5x20ZCcv1JMpcuaC64jwduyDraf6NCLpWtQvOGUS0Oatavp k7Vp2UXVHEQMIct0liLeFrv5BIYNkoBPYQNG5dSJswKQDamPN66SYe4XX4xmgGFyonYcGzYrl0JE YryikCRR8ED/9aBVVo6ZkN7w4ANd+gaXrHkgRC7/tI3CjXmVyvaEyC0rveMu79QfHMKJcj9qaDE7 Myo0IB9fFDIpiDCQLGtZQoamP/59bmqPOcVq5LImFetjNrXbBXgi4w25/ZL1S4orbC27wIbqb1J8 wyDQqXzDdmV14lHh20Ji8hbJgjI+X2hsBayqv/ZRksM8TeGoeH3YteOlbHKoDX2BUSfUV7YApUr1 rWXeW6Zbq05MfixkiwuppjVR5L7kHRvOzDqsw0lGtGlBJTXVSv8aSbhq91XBAlsF9wLyLmRH79XV Gw9fkTvcfVB+sf/mSStX8KvUb7asCZxqZWb+PNebCf9+B392eNvDmAiz8zBDUDaN5yk4xAm9D8KT eKJT7gNACPfBp8GgCRFRXP2MsoebOSvo3n+u98KLwR7zMWrhEzraLssPYY1cfp79Ks7YFG2Byhm5 c0KN41C3+Ji89NHjxiQTBLFiK2xVne09iAnRWcMTbKGGKcu/P2X06VhahFTX37Ismb3cd2SQ7D86 7xHbfm/JsV+DkDiP1EOo5xXzAYM8DpIPcffMSZEvghDuJtTCXrUs1PphAo/ytpUxyyQxwAcFyMp4 pvQm8asGSEPMmEFjyI5q77y3U4QtkbUlsgnkf8QccBIk1Sag4dKiqCrF8eZZ9yjCNjrhZLJVRJ94 urilBiWhjIVckCrey+Y+nFMDltIV9Fxd6j/3Y+PKbDhxQsL4kMSkgQhh9EvOApyl/zVAFd40eTXl WiUAYdLmsJdAoPJ64Ekug+xaM1kuiRykRLanRD82OuJV79na9rJ8uGuEo9HKs71g5Q6xSC5jQlWf 9uuJHdsd+cwIgRT6euCWiMrAFn6Yqx/INRjkdSBRreQVpg==
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2/23/2021 9:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> (2) References from RFCs.  These need to be, at least by
> default, exact.  The flexibilities that are an advantage with
> the above can be a liability here.  Why? Because it is not
> unusual for the substantive content of an I-D to change as work
> evolves and consensus emerges (or doesn't).  If, for example,
> version NN of an I-D said "the outside of the bikeshed MUST be
> painted blue", version NN+1 said "the outside of the bikeshed
> MUST be painted lime green" and explained why, it would be very
> important if an RFC that referenced it for color choices point
> to the version the RFC's author intended and not some other
> version.  Would it be important for the reader to find out that
> there is a later version in which things might have changed?
> Sometimes, but only the document author is likely to know.

Or, take the example of an Internet draft that ends up abandoned. 
References to such drafts are not rare. Now, what is also not rare is 
for the author of the abandoned draft to come back and "tombstone" it. 
You certainly don't want the reference to magically be updated and point 
to the tombstone.

-- Christian Huitema

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