[Rswg] Re: [rsab] Re: [Ext] Re: [rfc-i] Re: Call for comments: (RFC Editor Model (Version 3))

[Eliot Lear]

You're not actually addressing my point.  The chapeau is now inaccurate.

Here's the existing text:

7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series

    This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
    regarded as important to the RFC Series.  Proposals that affect these
    properties are possible within the processes defined in this
    document.  As described in Sections Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3,
    proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties
    should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB
    review.  The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes
    are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as
    they can be identified, have been carefully considered.

Some of the properties are *not* historical, and I would like them not to be represented as such.  Even simply removing the word "Historical" in the title and "historically" above would suffice.  No need to change the text below.  Less is more.

Eliot

On 17.06.2025 20:29, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On Jun 17, 2025, at 10:50, Eric Rescorla<e...@rtfm.com> wrote:

I agree with Eliot that we now have an inconsistency with respect to Section 7.6, but I 
don't think the fix is to remove the (as Jay says) very carefully negotiated 
"historical" text, especially as part of the idea was to acknowledge historical 
perspectives.

Instead, I think the right fix is to revert 7.6 to the original language from 
RFC 9280 and add a note that acknowledges that we are relaxing this property.

It's actually two properties. Section 7.6 is changed, and Section 7.8 is added.

Perhaps "Note that historically RFCs were treated as immutable, but [THIS RFC] 
allows those RFCs to be reissued provided that the semantic content is preserved to the 
greatest extent possible".

This changes "are not changed" to "immutable", something that the RSWG argued a 
lot about. I propose we don't revisit that. Instead, I propose keeping the 9280 text and adding the 
replacement text right there.


========== RFC 9280:

7.6.  Stability

    Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.


========== Current text:

7.6.  Stability

    (The text in this section is updated by Section 1.4.1)

    Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
    publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
    possible.

. . .

7.8.  Consistency

    (The text in this section is added by Section 1.4.2)

    RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.  They may be
    reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

========== Proposed replacement text:

7.6.  Stability

    Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed. (The text
    in this section is updated by Section 1.4.1 of this document to
    instead read:)

    Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
    publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
    possible.

. . .

7.8.  Consistency

    (RFC 9280 did not have "consistency" as a historical property in
    this section. The text in this section is added by Section 1.4.2
    to read:)

    RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.  They may be
    reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

--Paul Hoffman

OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org