--On Thursday, June 19, 2025 14:02 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin, > > On 19-Jun-25 13:45, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> Hello Brian, everybody, >> >> On 2025-06-19 05:44, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 19-Jun-25 05:37, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>>> I want to support John Klensin here. I have always thought that >>>> the ~immutability~ of RFCs was one of their greatest strengths. >>> >>> True, but that ceased to be a simple property once we allowed >>> multiple presentation formats. From then on, the property split >>> into two: immutability of presentation (gone) and immutability of >>> intent (hopefully still applicable). What we've been arguing >>> about is how to precisely define immutability of intent. >>> >>> A friendly amendment to: >>> >>>>> "Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but >>>>> only syntactic changes that do not affect the >>>>> syntax for protocols themselves may be >>>>> changed." >>> >>> is: >>> >>> "Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but >>> only syntactic or superficial changes that do >>> not affect the syntax for protocols themselves >>> may be made." >> >> I don't oppose the direction this is taking, but having >> "syntax/syntactic" in the same sentence for two different things >> may be confusing. Even more, RFCs don't only define the syntax for >> protocols, they usually also include some semantic part. On top of >> that, protocols are not the only thing we are defining. > > That's all true, so a little more wordsmithing may be needed, but > what I think John K and I are getting at is that the end goal is > interoperability on the wire (or the wireless), so it is all > matters related to such interop that absolutely must be immutable. Yes. Would "do not affect the operational specification of protocols themselves..." be a bit closer? john _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
