[rfc-i] "obsoleted by" in RFC 5143

[Bob Braden]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08#section-3.1> 
> 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.
> 

Julian,

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.

Bob Braden

> 
> BR, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest