[rfc-i] "obsoleted by" in RFC 5143
braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Nov 19 09:52:53 PST 2009
Julian Reschke wrote:
> points out:
> ...Currently two
> relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
> Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
> Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
> may appear in future RFCs.
Good catch. The ...ed by forms are not well described as variants;
perhaps "converse relationships" would be more accurate.
> That confused me a lot, because "obsoleted by" is the inverse of
> "obsoletes", not a variant, right?
> But, indeed, RFC 5143 *is* obsoleted by RFC 4842, which was published
> one year earlier.
> Does anybody know what exactly happened here?
I don't recall that particular case, but glancing at the abstracts and
the categories of 5143 and 4842, I can pretty well guess what happened.
Try starting from the presumption that it is correct, and I think it
will be clear.
> BR, Julian
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest