Chains of RFCs and Chains of Laws?

AlexNicoll writes "I recently completed a DNSSEC library for the .NET platform (thanks to Wouter @ NLNetLabs for his help!). While writing the library, I encountered the extremely entertaining concept of following the long chain of DNS-related RFCs on the IETF website. Some RFCs were obsoleted, some were updated, some updates were obsoleted by others, and some were never really formally related or linked — so even finding them was a challenge in search-fu. Finally, I think I got the whole picture, but I'm not sure. Then I got to thinking: searching for the relevant RFCs in IETF RFC chains was a lot like trying to figure out how (in the US) local, regional, state, and federal laws interact with themselves and each other. Since I just recently moved, I thought I ought to know the rules of the place I live in. It turns out to be just as non-trivial, if not more so, than parsing RFC chains. So here's the question: given that the processes are somewhat similar, does anyone know of a project that has tried to consolidate all the information in one place, so that it's in one comprehensive and up-to-date document, for either laws or RFCs?" Update: 05/24 14:24 GMT by KD : Ray Bellis from Nominet took up the challenge and compiled dependency graphs for DNS-related RFCs.

Comments

works for rfcs and laws

[QuantumG]

Do what works.
Don't get caught.

Re:Refactoring

[snowgirl]

I have actually been thinking about this.

Just like Computer Science got Design Patterns from architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander)

Lawmakes should take the concept of refactoring from computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring)

They kind of do, consult Restatement of torts, etc.

Re:probably illegal in most states

[snowgirl]

When I worked at a public library in Virginia, we were told that we weren't allowed to show someone how to use the index of the federal and state codes without having a license to practice law in Virginia. I've heard similar tales of Texas. I am not a lawyer, so I can't possibly understand whether or not what I just typed related to actual law or whimsy.

Some states have ridiculously pedantic laws about who can practice law, or give legal advice. Then they have really wide interpretations of what constitutes "legal advice".

So often times, it becomes a matter of policy for various institutions to reduce their liability. They typically are told to do this by their lawyers.

Re:Refactoring

[snowgirl]

As a recently passed example, example: the full-text of SB-1070.

Some laws already are passed as if they were diffs. Although, we do a poor job of keeping version histories navigable such as they are on Wikipedia, but a recording agency could conceivably keep track of the legal text that way.

Common forms are to underline text that is being added, and strike-through indicating text that will be deleted.

For instance, scroll down to "Sec 4. Section 13-2319": the original bullet "E." has been struck through, and replaced with "F."

Fuck no

[ndogg]

If such a thing were done, it would make the laws easy to understand and follow, and we can't have that, otherwise we'll bankrupt the lawyers!

As much as I hate the bitch, Ayn Rand was right about one thing--that governments make needless laws to create criminals of its citizens in hopes they'll pay them to not be criminals any more (well, paraphrased, anyway).

This thought process doesn't really work for computer standards, so I couldn't give a reason for the disorganization of the RFCs.

That said, one counter argument to the second paragraph of this is Hanlon's Razor--"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."--which would play to the disorganization all around.