--On Friday, June 20, 2025 14:31 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19-Jun-25 14:39, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> >> --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? > > After 24 hours of reflection, yes, I think that is the right level. > > After all, we have always allowed translations into other languages; > here we are talking about changes that are much less drastic. While I agree with the conclusion, I'm not certain the analogy works. We've never taken the position that those translations are authoritative. Even with multiple presentation forms, we've consistently taken the position that the English versions are the ones that are approved by the community (or streams) and that those translations are important and valid only insofar as they are an accurate match for the English version(s). > Oh. New issue. I just realised that it would be very wise to ask > the IETF Trust if they have any comments on this matter. Probably > not, but we don't want a post-approval surprise. Yep. john _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
