[rfc-i] Relation to other RFCs - Updates
mrex at sap.com
Thu May 3 15:48:57 PDT 2012
Joe Touch wrote:
> On 5/3/2012 9:43 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> > so for consistency,
> > IPv6 does not "Obsolete" (=completely replace) IPv4,
> TCP-AO obsoletes TCP MD5. It is not backward compatible, but is intended
> as its replacement.
> As others have noted, this is another use of "obsoletes", i.e., "use
> this [complete] spec, not the obsoleted one".
> So we could have decided that IPv6 obsoleted IPv4 (even though we
> didn't). The point isn't backward compatibility; it's whether the
> issuance of the new protocol is intended as a replacement for the old
> one AND the old one should *now* no longer be used.
Yes, there are two distinct usages of the term "obsoletes":
(1) the natural language use and meanding of the word "obsoletes"
in the description of the "Historic" classification
in rfc2026 (IETF Standards process)
(2) the narrowly scoped meaning of the "Obsoletes:"/"Obsoleted by:"
as defined by the RFC Editor in rfc2223 and
And we should stop using (1) to mess up the navigational hints (2)
for the RFC readers.
More information about the rfc-interest