[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Wed Mar 25 18:55:28 PDT 2020


Martin Duke <martin.h.duke at gmail.com> wrote:
    > But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee
    > foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references
    > before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these
    > categories will encourage people to use them.

I am generally in agreement with you.

    > If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through
    > time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed
    > the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and
    > informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.

What if we had two kinds of normative reference?

    > TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.

... so that the citation tool could link forward intelligently.
Otherwise RFC793-like issue can occur for many documents.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200325/aabdece9/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list