[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jun 18 14:23:37 PDT 2015

On Jun 18, 2015, at 12:53 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:
> As a general principle for I-Ds, I believe we should be striving
> for maximum communication and information content, even if
> getting there requires temporarily doing things that the RFC
> Editor would not allow in permanent/archival RFCs.
> (back to intermittent lurking)

But before you do: do you feel that having prose that says "this draft obsoletes/updates that draft" is insufficient? I removed the ability to use the first-page headers to do this because it felt that was overriding stuff from 2026, and I see no problem with prose, even in the Abstract, that says what the relationship between this draft and those other drafts are.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list