Which two different meanings do you mean? > On 7. Jul 2026, at 16:10, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given that even the proposed amends tag has two different meanings, and how > nuanced language gets, I think tryng to fix the tag is the wrong answer. > Instead, lets clarify the expectation that a draft is explicit and clear > about what it is changing relative to RFCs it updates. Otherwise, this > seems to be a recipe for more argumentation about which if any tag a specific > draft needs. > > That also leaves to the IESG whether the specific effort to make something > retroactively mandatory is appropriate to the specific case, without getting > into defining tags that appear to endorse such treatment. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 7/7/2026 6:31 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: >> The fact that you said below multiple “to me” makes it very obvious that >> everybody is applying their own set of rules to “updates” and the problem is >> these don't match. Also again, the draft doesn’t require the use of these >> tags, however, it requires that if you use them, they need to align with the >> provided definition. I guess we could also discuss this more in the draft, >> where it makes sense to use them, e.g. if there is a registry you might no >> need the tag or give more examples about other kind of known extension >> points. I will open an issue. >> >>> On 7. Jul 2026, at 10:43, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> On 07.07.2026 08:13, Brian Rosen wrote: >>>> In my draft, I added a new interface. It’s optional. It doesn’t use >>>> anything that was previously unused. It’s an entirely new interface that >>>> provides some useful information the existing interface doesn’t provide. >>> To me, the question boils down to whether implementation of your draft >>> would violate the base specification. If it does, then Updates seems >>> appropriate (at a bare minimum). If it doesn't, then no. If the WG can't >>> answer that question crisply, then the underlying protocol may indeed have >>> some issues, requiring an Update (or more), in order to handle its >>> evolution; although I take your point about the pain of Obsoletes. We're >>> about to go through that with TEAPv2. >>> >>> Michael's use of Amends in 9914 to me is a classic case of Updates, where a >>> field that was required to be set to zero is now the P flag. Updates >>> needed (again, at a minimum). >>> >>> As to Extends, or more precisely Extended-by, were it implemented, it could >>> not be in the front matter because protocols like SMTP* and TLS would >>> become unreadable. I'm still not clear on whether it would add more value >>> or confusion to the reader. >>> >>> Eliot >>> >>> * To answer Michael's question, there has only ever been a single MTI on >>> port 25 since RFC 1123, and that is EHLO, which is the only extension that >>> is mentioned in 5321bis. >>> >>> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>-- >>> rswg mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
