--On Thursday, December 22, 2016 09:59 +0000 "Dearlove,
Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've written a few RFCs, and had debates about whether this
> is an update or not (usually resolved as whatever makes the
> IESG happy).
>
> But as a reader of RFCs I have one simple rule of thumb. If
> I'm reading RFC ABCD, I want to know what other RFCs I need,
> or might need, to read because they modify, or extend, RFC
> ABCD in a manner that matters. For example (and maybe we need
> more examples) if I'm parsing an RFC ABCD message, what new
> options do I need to know about that are in other RFCs?
> Whether that's called update I don't really care, but
> that's my practical need for such a field.
And that is exactly the problem ISDs (and some of the other
changes needed to make them work) were intended to solve.
Paragraphs or sections here and there in documents don't do it,
partially because "you need to go read those two things as well"
may not be reflected in an 'updates' relationship and often are
not.
john