Re: [apps-discuss] Requirement for "obsoletes" in Abstracts

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I just posted a note to the RFC Editor suggesting that all this points to
> some benefit in reviewing and revising the RFC Style guide.

Agreed; and then we need to reflect those changes into the I-D checklist.

> From that perspective, what it obsoletes isn't useful in the
> Abstract, especially since Abstracts are supposed to be information-dense.

It's particularly not useful because the abstract is, at least with
the current template, on the same page as the header information,
which already contains the obsoletes/updates information.  To my mind,
that makes it 100% useless to include that in the abstract.  I would
support a recommendation that specs SHOULD explain in the introduction
*why* this document obsoletes another if the reason is not blazingly
obvious (obvious as when, for example, RFC 5321 obsoleted RFC 2821).

> 2. Authors should not have to guess about what is an absolute rule and what
> isn't.

Clearly right.

> 3. The rationale for the rules should be provided.

I think explaining rationale is usually valuable, and am curious when
I see various reviewers push back on such things, saying that they
don't see the need for it.

Barry