See inline. > On 7. Jul 2026, at 20:19, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 9:38 AM Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected] > <mailto:[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). > > I'm sorry, I don't agree. My view is that adding more tags with detailed > guidelines is just as likely to create more debate, not less. If we are to do > something here, I would instead replace both Obsoletes and Updates with some > variant of "look over here" or "you might be interested in", thus avoiding > any debate.
That’s why we also added the “see also” tag. Why do you think that “amends” and “extends” are not clear? > > >> 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. > > I think we just have different opinions. > > -Ekr > > >> >>> On 7. Jul 2026, at 17:02, Eric Rescorla <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 7:54 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected] >>> <mailto:mcr%[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mirja Kuehlewind \(IETF\) <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[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]
