[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 16:39:39 PDT 2015


Just FYI, WG chairs can also fill in the replaced-by field for drafts in
their WG.


On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:51 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:

> --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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20150618/0e015fc4/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list