On Jul 7, 2026, at 08:02, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > This seems like the optimistic view. The pessimistic view is that it will > usher > in a whole new round of arguments about whether it should be Updates-123 or > Updates-545. . . . > In addition to the concern above, namely creating new arguments about > which tag applies, if it turns out not to work, we end up with a bunch of > confusing and no-longer-used tags in perpetuity.
I agree with Ekr's views. Again, the easiest thing to do here is probably the one that will also lead to the most clarity: the IETF (and maybe other streams) requires that a draft say *in text* what its "Updates" tag means for this draft and earlier RFCs. Inventing new semantics for new tags and sub-tags is a partial engineering solution to what is a human problem. --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
