On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2018-09-12 06:08, Robert Sparks wrote: > > I can live with this statement, but I don't like it. > > > > I'm in the camp that prefers the more specific "This changes the code > > you need to write" camp - I would prefer Update be restricted to the > > cases where you are changing the protocol defined in the updated > > document in an essential way. > > The IAB already opined indirectly on this topic. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#page-5 says: > > >>> Extension designers should examine their design for the following > >>> issues: > >>> > >>> 1. Modifications or extensions to the underlying protocol. An > >>> extension document should be considered to update the underlying > >>> protocol specification if an implementation of the underlying > >>> protocol would need to be updated to accommodate the extension. > >>> This should not be necessary if the underlying protocol was > >>> designed with a modular interface. > > (followed by more detailed discussion). > > I'm not sure the IESG text is 100% compatible with this. I believe it was intended to be, and I'm not sure what incompatibility you are seeing; could you say more? > > nor do they, by themselves, imply that implementers must implement the updating RFC to continue to comply with the updated one. > > seems to be going to far. It may be the intent of the update that > implementations *need* to be updated, because the update fixes a bug. > In that case, "updates" really means "partially obsoletes". Is there anything stopping the body text of the document from saying "this document updates [foo] by obsoleting the completely broken bits that do [bar]"? Namely, the *keyword* does not indicate that you must update implementations. The body text can try really hard to say that you should do so, though. -Ben
