[rfc-i] obsoletes/updates

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Jun 23 17:50:31 PDT 2015


On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:10:03AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> Summary:
> (1) Just -00 or persisting?   Yes

Yes, exactly.  There's no harm in keeping this in -01 and so on.

> (2) Carried into RFC?  Current RFC-to-RFC info, yes.  I-D to I-D
> info, no.

Hmmm, well, for RFC formats where this metadata can be kept and
displayed without being too annoying (e.g., for HTML, say, but not for
.txt), sure.  For .txt, no.

RFCs can update/obsolete/move to historical other RFCs.

Internet-Drafts can mean to update/obsolete/move to historical other
RFCs.

Internet-Drafts can replace other Internet-Drafts.

RFCs notionally just exist without reference to any earlier draft form.
However, it's convenient to have at hand the history of how an RFC was
pulished, which includes all the relevant metadata, such as:

 - last I-D prior to publication
 - time (date ranges) spent on the RFC-Editor queue at each state
 - shepherding AD
 - IESG review and ballot record
 - appeal record
 - links to mailing list archives on which reviews of the I-Ds took
   place
 - previous I-D handles
 - links to the XML (and/or other submission formats) for all past
   versions of the I-Ds leading to the RFC's publication

In practice most of this has to be collated when it's needed (if it's
needed).  It's not that hard to do it, and mostly it's not needed, so in
the end it'd be best not to add this collation workload to the
RFC-Editor's.  It suffices that the datatracker have it, so a link to
the datatracker page for the RFC (or last I-D leading to the RFC's
publication) should suffice.

Nico
-- 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list