[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com
Thu Jun 18 14:55:14 PDT 2015



--On Thursday, June 18, 2015 14:23 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

> 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?

It depends on how far buried it is in the text, and so...

> 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.

"in the Abstract" is definitely non-buried, especially if that
is after a paragraph break.   On the other hand, if you put it
in one place, I put it in another, and Julian puts it in a
third, that is not really helpful for someone trying to skim
through an I-D and put it in enough context to decide whether to
read/study it carefully.

It may be that the solution to several of the problems that we
are trying to solve by markup is some specific guidance about
I-D writing --not rules, but guidance that, for maximum
effectives, non-obvious linking information should be supplied
and should be put in such-and-such a place.  On the other hand,
tagging "I-D history and linkage information" differently from
"obsoletes/updates for RFC purposes" provides both a hint that
the information is considered useful and turns uniformity of
where it ends up over to the formatting/presentation engines.
It seems to me that would be A Good Thing although not of
earthshaking importance.

All of that said, I still agree with Julian's example: your
document appears to obsolete something that is an I-D now but
can be expected to be published before (and, of course, if) your
document it rather than obsoleting the document that other one
obsoletes.

best,
    john





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list