Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-01
|
Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-09-04
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Best Current Practice S. Krishnan
Expires: March 7, 2020 Kaloom
September 04, 2019
Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-01
Abstract
An RFC can include a tag called "Updates" which can be used to link a
new RFC to an existing RFC. On publication of such an RFC, the
existing RFC will include an additional metadata tag called "Updated
by" which provides a link to the new RFC. However, this tag pair is
not well-defined and therefore it is currently used for multiple
different purposes, which leads to confusion about the actual meaning
of this tag and inconsistency in its use.
This document recommends the discontinuation of the use of the
updates/updated by tag pair, and instead proposes three new tag pairs
that have well-defined meanings and use cases.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Kuehlewind & Krishnan Expires March 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft New Tag Definitions September 2019
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
An RFC can include a tag called "Updates" which can be used to link a
new RFC to an existing RFC. On publication of such an RFC, the
existing RFC will include an additional metadata tag called "Updated
by" which provides a link to the new RFC. However, this tag pair is
not well-defined and therefore it is currently used for multiple
different purposes, which leads to confusion about the actual meaning
of this tag and inconsistency in its use.
The "Updates/Updates by" tag pair is currently used by different
working groups and different areas, which tend to apply different
meanings to it. They also differ greatly about the obligations on
the implementors of the Updated RFC. While updating an RFC never
makes the updated RFC invalid, updates can contain bug fixes or
critical changes. Some groups apply the update tag only to these
kind of changes with the expectation that new implementors are also
obliged to implement this new RFC. Some other groups use the update
tag to define optional extensions or use of extension points in the
current protocol. This disconnect leads to a situation where it is
desirable to add a "mandatory-to-implement" indication to an existing
RFC.
Groups or individuals that apply such restrictive conditions to the
Updates tag, consequently usually don't use the update tag for any
extensions or addition to a protocol. However, as there is no other
way in the current metadata scheme to link a new RFC to an existing
RFC, not using the Updates tag makes it harder to find these new
RFCs. While implementors might well benefit from some extensions or
additions, they might not be aware of them and either not use them
or, in the worst case, implement an alternate mechanism instead.
Currently the Updates/Updated by tag pair mainly provides a way to
link two documents. The cases mentioned above clearly benefit from
such a linkage which the expectation that readers of one RFC as least
look or also read the other RFC. Additionally, there are more cases
where such a linkage could be useful to improve awareness of some
newer related technology without providing any indication on the
importance of the linked document. As the conditions for the use of
Show full document text