I agree.
I think IETF has many confused documents/RFCs for the world readers (specially students), but still not willing to update IETF methods to reducing such confusion (kind of old method style still in force).
I want to add that IETF needs to consider that each update RFC doc needs to have a number related to the updated document RFC. It is strange to have RFC updates with different RFC numbers unrelated. Clarifying the relationship between docs is important, and is easier by simple numbering, especially that RFC updates is most likely to occur per author or per WG and per future.
I prefer the update doc to have the same title of original RFC in addition to the updated issue/section.
I think author's update docs per RFC should not be many docs but few (not more than 3), because many updates makes confusions and separates issues that can make many errors/misuse for the RFC users.
> On Sep 11, 2018, at 11:55, Ben Campbell <ben at nostrum.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> There have been several discussions lately about the use and meaning of the “Updates” header in RFCs, and the resulting “Updates”/“Updated by” relationships. The IESG is thinking about making the following statement, and solicits feedback.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> There has been considerable confusion among the IETF community about the formal meaning of the “Updates” / "Updated by" relationship in IETF stream RFCs. The “Updates” header has been historically used for number of reasons of various strength. For example, the “Updates” header may be used to indicate critical normative updates (i.e. bug fixes), optional extensions, and even “additional information”.
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> There have been several discussions lately about the use and meaning of the “Updates” header in RFCs, and the resulting “Updates”/“Updated by” relationships. The IESG is thinking about making the following statement, and solicits feedback.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> There has been considerable confusion among the IETF community about the formal meaning of the “Updates” / "Updated by" relationship in IETF stream RFCs. The “Updates” header has been historically used for number of reasons of various strength. For example, the “Updates” header may be used to indicate critical normative updates (i.e. bug fixes), optional extensions, and even “additional information”.
>
The purpose statement section should make all update protocol things and info clear
AB
