On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 11:14 AM John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> > > --On Tuesday, June 17, 2025 10:50 -0700 Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> > wrote: > > > I agree with Eliot that we now have an inconsistency with respect to > > Section 7.6, but I don't think the fix is to remove the (as Jay > > says) very carefully negotiated "historical" text, especially as > > part of the idea was to acknowledge historical perspectives. > > > > Instead, I think the right fix is to revert 7.6 to the original > > language from RFC 9280 and add a note that acknowledges that we are > > relaxing this property. Perhaps "Note that historically RFCs were > > treated as immutable, but [THIS RFC] allows those RFCs to be > > reissued provided that the semantic content is preserved to the > > greatest extent possible". > > I have not been able to follow the discussion as closely as I would > have liked. However, consider the discussions on different lists > lately about exactly what specific words mean (including with or > without case distinctions) and, while not phrased that way, whether > or not "exact" actually means "exact" and how much context counts. > For someone who is trying to depend on the content of an RFC, a > condition like "preserved to the greatest extent possible" -- one > that is inherently subjective -- is equivalent, or nearly so, to > "well, probably the semantic comment that you, the reader, care about > and how it is interpreted won't change but maybe it will". And, I'm > sorry, but that is ultimately equivalent to "can't trust an RFC to > mean what it meant when it was published". > > I think we should be very cautious about going there or even > appearing to do so. > AIUI this precise change was one of the main motivations for this document, and the most of the the aforementioned text already appears in S 1.4.1: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-03.html#section-1.4.1 I'm just suggesting (following Eliot) that we make clear in S 7.6 (which is about history) that the historical property was immutability but that we are now changing that. For the record, I don't really agree with you on the substantive question here, but as this document has already passed WGLC and is now in front of the RSAB, I don't think it's really productive to debate the merits at this point. -Ekr > john > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:11 AM Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > > > >> I do recall, but we are no longer using those properties in the > >> same way- they have been modified; and so the text is no longer > >> accurate. Also my comments were and are as an individual during > >> the community comment phase. > >> > >> Eliot > >> On 17.06.2025 15:42, Jay Daley wrote: > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> > >> On 4 Jun 2025, at 11:38, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> <l...@lear.ch> > >> wrote: The Chapeau in Section 7 now looks a little funny, and > >> historically wrong, given that we appear to be changing history. > >> To this end, I suggest the following changes: OLD: > >> 7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series > >> NEW: > >> 7. Properties of the RFC Series > >> OLD: > >> This section lists some of the properties that have been > >> historically regarded as important to the RFC Series. > >> NEW: > >> This section lists some of the properties that are > >> regarded as important to the RFC Series. > >> > >> You may not recall, but the existing language was a careful > >> compromise reflecting some very different views on the > >> applicability of these properties. There were a number who > >> strongly disagreed with these properties as things to maintain > >> going forward and so the wording was chosen to reflect that these > >> properties, while once considered important, no longer had > >> consensus. In that context, changing this in the RSAB stage of > >> processing is quite problematic. > >> > >> Jay > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
