Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
    > see inline. A great summary, just one nit which might be relevant:

I should add, having now read the document in question, which is remarkably
short, if a been ironic:

   The obsoleted "Instructions to RFC Authors" [2] in Section 12
   describe what "Updates" and "Obsoletes" mean.  These descriptions do
   not appear in RFC 7322, and even if they did, they might still not
   always be sufficient to understand the exact nature of the update.

   {RFC7322 obsoleted 2223, and 7322 doesn't include Updates or Obsoletes,
   then it seems we've painted ourselves into a corner :-)}

but, my substantive comment is that we should obsolete the term "Updates"
due to:

    Generally speaking, using "Updates" often has one of two possible
    motivations: One is a bug fix ....

    The second motivation is that the updating RFC is a backwards
    compatible extension, which means that strictly speaking, it does not

and instead use terms "Extends" and "Corrects".

I'm unclear if there is a new required section "Reasons for updating"?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature