[rfc-i] Relation to other RFCs - Updates

SM sm at resistor.net
Thu May 3 15:55:46 PDT 2012

Hi Martin,
At 15:03 03-05-2012, Martin Rex wrote:
>We should empower RFC Editor & IESG to enforce this.

It's not clear how to get that done.

>Think of all three (errata, Updates:, Obsoletes:) as retroactive
>normative references being inserted into an existing RFC.

Even if you do that, a RFC is not really changed.  The problem with 
retroactive measures is that it affects the stability of a 
specification.  For example, see 

>At the other far end you'll find a mess like the fragmented wilderness
>of documents describing various parts of "DNS".

Everyone has their own view of what the scriptures said.

>The primary specs for DNS seem to be 1034, 1035 and 2181.


>A quick glance at 1034 and the "Updated by:" meta-data suggests:
>Correct   "Updates:" to 1034 are 1982,2308,4343,4592,5936
>Incorrect "Updates:" to 1034 are 1101,1183,1348,1876,2065,2535,4033,4034,4035

Some of the RFCs on the second line are Experimental or Obsolete.

>The authors on the front page of an I-D ought to list the _active_
>editors for that document.  The authors of the last I-D are carried
>through to RFC, and those are the one who the RFC Editor will probably
>talk to.  Having more than 5 _active_ document editors seems
>somewhat unreasonable to me.

There has been a discussion on this list about the topic ( 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2012-April/003299.html ).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list