On 19-Jun-25 14:39, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, June 19, 2025 14:02 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:Martin, On 19-Jun-25 13:45, Martin J. Dürst wrote:Hello Brian, everybody, On 2025-06-19 05:44, Brian E Carpenter wrote:On 19-Jun-25 05:37, Donald Eastlake wrote:I want to support John Klensin here. I have always thought that the ~immutability~ of RFCs was one of their greatest strengths.True, but that ceased to be a simple property once we allowed multiple presentation formats. From then on, the property split into two: immutability of presentation (gone) and immutability of intent (hopefully still applicable). What we've been arguing about is how to precisely define immutability of intent. A friendly amendment to:"Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic changes that do not affect the syntax for protocols themselves may be changed."is: "Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic or superficial changes that do not affect the syntax for protocols themselves may be made."I don't oppose the direction this is taking, but having "syntax/syntactic" in the same sentence for two different things may be confusing. Even more, RFCs don't only define the syntax for protocols, they usually also include some semantic part. On top of that, protocols are not the only thing we are defining.That's all true, so a little more wordsmithing may be needed, but what I think John K and I are getting at is that the end goal is interoperability on the wire (or the wireless), so it is all matters related to such interop that absolutely must be immutable.Yes. Would "do not affect the operational specification of protocols themselves..." be a bit closer?
After 24 hours of reflection, yes, I think that is the right level. After all, we have always allowed translations into other languages; here we are talking about changes that are much less drastic. Oh. New issue. I just realised that it would be very wise to ask the IETF Trust if they have any comments on this matter. Probably not, but we don't want a post-approval surprise. Brian
john
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
