fwiw - this fixation with tags seems orthogonal to what is needed - which is that the "changes since RFC xxx" section of the new document carefully explain the changes (whatever they are - replacements, additions, sidesteps, workarounds ....)
the readers can decide for themselves what to call the change - I'd just stick with "updates" and require the full details Scott > On Jul 7, 2026, at 12:38 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The discussion on which tag applies would be at least based on something > written and consensus based and not just on differing strong opinions about > how to do it right. That should make the discussion easier and also create > less of them. That’s the goal! Maybe it wouldn’t avoid it entirely but I > don’t think that a good reason to not do it as I don’t think there is a > perfect solution (and probably there don’t need to be one; sometimes you > simply need to have a discussion and make a decision). > > Having some potentially confusing tags on old RFCs (that could be revised if > needed) doesn’t seem to be worse than what we have right now: one tag that is > not defined at all and a mismatch of use and interpretation as everybody > makes up their own requirements. > >> On 7. Jul 2026, at 17:02, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 7:54 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Mirja Kuehlewind \(IETF\) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Agreed! >> I think that it would be brilliant if an AD review told the WG: >> "Yeah, that document is not an Updates-123, it's an Updates-545, right?" >> >> WG: Oh yeah, we didn't change our meta-data as our I-D evolved into being >> better at interoperating with old thing FOO. >> 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. >> >> > Also my question is what’s the harm I trying it. If it doesn’t help, we >> > stop it again. However, I think there is a chance to at least improve >> > the situation even though we might not fix all issues entirely. >> >> +1 >> >> 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. >> >> -Ekr >> >> > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
