[rfc-i] "obsoleted by" in RFC 5143
Andrew G. Malis
agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 11:33:17 PST 2009
Bob and Julian,
I can fill you in on that one, as the primary guilty party.
When we did the work in the pwe3 working group on this protocol, even
though what we standardized was RFC 4842, there were substantial
pre-standard deployments of the original early drafts, which can
happen when the running code precedes the rough consensus :-).
So the agreement we reached in the WG was that we would publish 4842
as the officially blessed PS for future implementations to use, and
then go back and publish the original work as historic, just to
document what was running in the field at that time. That resulted in
5143, which was indeed obsoleted by 4842. We made that pretty clear in
the abstract to 5143.
When we did the work on RFC 4842 in the PWE3
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Bob Braden <braden at isi.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> Bob Braden
>> BR, Julian
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest