[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 15:15:32 PDT 2015


John,

Is the replaced-by mechanism in the datatracker insufficient for what you
want?

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:53 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, June 18, 2015 08:30:53 +0200 Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-06-17 22:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >...
> >> The most significant change in
> >> this version is to give examples of the "updates" and
> >> "obsoletes" attributes of <rfc>. In the same attributes,
> >> removed the ability to say that an Internet-Draft updates or
> >> obsoletes another Internet-Draft, based on RFC 2026. ...
> >
> > I think that's a regression.
> >
> > There are cases where a *draft* wants to say that it
> > updates/obsoletes  another one, and there's no reason to
> > forbid it. The situation for RFCs  is of course different.
>
> I'm usually quiet on this list (and rarely read it these days),
> but I have to agree with both Julian and Paul (even though they
> seem to be disagreeing with each other).
>
> An I-D really serves two purposes, as a working document for
> development and discussion and, at least for a subset of I-Ds,
> as a proto-RFC.    For the latter, including the tracking
> information ("Obsoletes", "Updates") that would be associated
> with the document if published as an RFC is very important for
> both information and checking.   However, for the first
> function, tracking for I-D relationships may, in some
> circumstances, be equally important.  I hope we never get
> pedantic and petty enough to want to see that
> draft-foo-bar-baz-03 obsoleted draft-foo-bar-baz-02.  However,
> as documents are consolidated and move in and out of WGs, having
> a standard way to note, in an I-D (not just the tracker), that
> draft-ietf-bar-baz-00 has replaced draft-foo-bar-baz-05 seems to
> me to be very helpful, independent of how it is marked up and
> presented.
>
> > As a matter of fact, this very draft shouldn't say "obsoletes:
> > 2629" but  "obsoletes: draft-iab-xml2rfcv2".
>
> It is very unusual to have a document and its successor under
> active development at the same time, but my vague memory is that
> it has even happened with standards track protocol specs.
> Certainly "obsoletes: draft-iab-xml2rfcv2" (or "obsoletes:
> 2629bis" or even "obsoletes: 2629, draft-iab-xml2rfcv2") convey
> a lot more information to those trying to understand what is
> going on and how things should be reviewed than "obsoletes:
> 2629". The latter, if draft-iab-xml2rfcv2 is published, will
> simply be false.
>
> 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.
>
> best,
>     john
>
> (back to intermittent lurking)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20150618/7d25add2/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list