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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:54 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 371493A0803 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:54:17 -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 3bLWLh4Q4-mY for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:54:15 -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 C45C93A0896 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C980FF406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:54:04 -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 D554FF406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:54:03 -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 jr9MOE9h3msX for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5119DF406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFE3548048; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:54:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 56C47440040; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:54:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:54:05 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <20200325235405.GU30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9AA83737-63DF-4B4F-84FC-4BC6CAC7A50C@strayalpha.com>
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>

Thanks, Joe,

The Amendments to the US constitution is a good counter example
for my mis-understanding of it being "more". Thanks.

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. The main reason for changing words is to support a
change in semantic.

Then i am be fine with the change in word, but not the currently
proposed semantic.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:46:36PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mar 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Point 1: Whats a native english speakers explanation why "Amended" is
> > significantly better than ???Updated"
> 
> I???d start by asking that speaker to explain amended, emended, and updated.
> 
> Nuanced speakers will appreciate the difference; for most, IMO, ???updated??? covers everything needed and is much more commonly used. That helps for non-native speakers.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Amended can mean ???puts right??? or ???updates??? too. The 18th Amendment (literally) to the US constitution removed the right to manufacture and consume alcohol; the 21st Amendment restored it. 
> 
> In a sense, the first removed a right by adding a restriction, the second restored a right by undoing the first one in its entirety. Both are amendments, both figuratively and by name.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> All good reasons to just say ???updates???.
> 
> Why are we spending more cycles on this??
> 
> Joe

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