On 24/02/2016 07:44, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 23/02/16 18:36, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on >> *something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be >> clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when >> a "Updates" tag is warranted or not) > > In theory, yes. I don't find it to be something that I'd prioritise > myself. I suspect attempts to "fix" this would open a can of worms > about the general semantics of relationships between RFCs and would > likely end up being very hard to get done, and with not much benefit > at the end. It's clear that there is a problem with "updates", "obsoletes", "normative reference" and "informative reference" being the only clearly defined relationships between documents. Sometimes you just need to read a group of documents with none of these relationships to get the whole picture. We have a draft solution: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-isdbis-00 Brian