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
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
More information about the rfc-interest