[rfc-i] references vs front matter
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com
Tue Jan 29 08:01:58 PST 2008
I think the RFC being deleted should be mentioned and there should be at
least a few words in the new RFC on why/how it is being deleted or what
is different about the new RFC in comparison with the old.
From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org
[mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:12 AM
To: Julian Reschke; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] references vs front matter
I don't see a need for that. Informative References are for cases
where there is indeed relevant information in the old RFC. If that
RFC is obsoleted by the new one, the usual case is that the old
RFC doesn't contain any relevant information anymore, the information
is either taken over into the new RFC, or is, as it says, obsolete.
There may be exceptions to this, e.g. if the old RFC contains some
design discussions that haven't been taken over into the new RFC,
but are still of interest, or if the Acks section in the old RFC
is still relevant, and so on.
At 19:11 08/01/29, Julian Reschke wrote:
>here's a simple question:
>Let's say RFC YYYY obsoletes RFC XXXX, and says so on the front page.
>However, RFC XXXX isn't mentioned anywhere else throughout the text.
>Should it still contain an Informative Reference to RFC XXXX? I would
>think so, but the RFC-Editor seems to disagree.
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest