Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:42:19 +0200

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”.

The purpose statement section should make all update protocol things and
info clear

AB