[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com
Thu Jun 18 15:51:53 PDT 2015



--On Thursday, June 18, 2015 15:15 -0700 "Andrew G. Malis"
<agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:

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

Mostly yes, it is insufficent, especially as implemented today.

Explanation:

If I am trying to figure out what happened to a draft by
looking, by name, for the old one, then the datatracker does the
job and does it well.  However, if I already know the name,
e.g., from an I-D announcement, pull the new draft, and notice,
or not, that it is related to something I've seen before, then
the datatracker "replaces" information is not immediately in
front of me and, unless I'm very experienced with the IETF and
its various systems, it is unlikely that I'd even think to look
there.  

If I have discovered that the datatracker information is often
incomplete, the odds of my bothering to check go down
significantly.

The fact that the replaced by/ replaces datatracker information
still (AFAIK) requires manual intervention by the Secretariat
(or maybe an AD) may contribute to the fact that those bits of
linking information are very poorly maintained, while an entry
in the document itself is an assertion an author/editor can make
directly.  If it were tagged, one might even imagine the
datatracker picking up the tag and setting the fields
automagically.  (Yes, I can imagine some attacks using that as a
vector but it is certainly no worse than the false claims of
authorship issue (and, IMO, is related to it as well as the
rules for who can post a -NN draft, NN > 00).

best,
    john





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list