Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-00

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00

Network Working Group                                      M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       S. Krishnan
Expires: January 28, 2020                                         Kaloom
                                                           July 27, 2019

           Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
                     draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-00

Abstract

   The metadata of 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 January 28, 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 January 28, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             New Tag Definitions                 July 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

   The metadata of 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