Hi Ben, On 2018-09-14 01:34, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > 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? There's a subtlety in this phrase: "would need to be updated to accommodate the extension." Even though I'm a co-author of RFC6709, I'm not 100% sure what this means. I think it means "if an implementor adds the extension to the code, she must also modify the base code". The IAB text seems to be saying that if you add a feature that does not *require* a change to the existing code, it's not an update. I'm not sure I even agree with that, and I don't think the IESG text does either. (If it does, we need a new tag "Extends:".) >>> 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. Yes. Brian > > -Ben >
