mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Wed Mar 25 18:55:28 PDT 2020
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke at gmail.com> wrote:
> But I dislike the idea of having "Extends" and "See Also". I foresee
> foundational documents (like RFC 793) with a few pages of RFC references
> before the text starts. That is useless. Plus the formal existence of these
> categories will encourage people to use them.
I am generally in agreement with you.
> If we would like better forward-tracing of standards evolution through
> time, I would prefer if the datatracker and rfc-editor pages simply listed
> the times the RFC was cited by other RFCs both normatively and
> informatively. I think that would be sufficient and automatable.
What if we had two kinds of normative reference?
> TLDR, rename Updated to Amended, build the citation tool, and call it done.
... so that the citation tool could link forward intelligently.
Otherwise RFC793-like issue can occur for many documents.
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest