Just quickly on your last point: „see also“ provides the opposite direction from references. A function that provides a pointer from an existing RFC to a newer one that didn’t exist when the old RFC was written.
> Am 07.07.2026 um 23:13 schrieb Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]>: > > > > Regards/Ngā mihi > Brian Carpenter > >> On 08-Jul-26 08:09, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: >> 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? > > As SM pointed out, there is some existing language in 2223bis [1] > (ironically, an expired "Obsoletes" draft) that actually strikes me as very > good: > > Updates: The new document cannot be > used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the > earlier document. > > Obsoletes: The new document can be used alone as a > replacement for the obsoleted document. > > Also, the meaning of "Extends" is quite broad and can mean many different > things [RFC6709]. So can "Amends" (is it a correction, a clarification, or an > actual change that changes what should be on the wire?). > > I'm slowly coming round to the view that "Updates" with a mandatory > explanation may be the best solution (whereas "Obsoletes" is complete on its > own). > > On balance, I'm not a fan of "See Also" - that's what Informational > references are for. > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08#page-13 > > Brian > >>> >>> 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]
