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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-02-05 21:46, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 2/4/2012 10:12 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> the IESG does not treat this as a hard-and-fast rule, but, in fact,
>> more as a "strong recommendation". ADs normally don't use DISCUSS to
>> comment on
>> this, but non-blocking COMMENT. And the PROTO writeup can call it out
>> and say
>> that it's intended this way.
>
>
> 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.
>
> In the current case:
>
> 1. I happen to believe that RFCs usually should not contain information
> that ceases to be interesting; that is, that has a short lifetime of
> usefulness. For some odd reason, I think of an RFC as having a
> twenty-year or more span of utility. From that perspective, what it
> obsoletes isn't useful in the Abstract, especially since Abstracts are
> supposed to be information-dense.
>
> 2. Authors should not have to guess about what is an absolute rule and
> what isn't.
>
> 3. The rationale for the rules should be provided.

+1

I can see that it's useful for the RFC Editor to be able to easily find 
out what changes to the RFC Editor database are required. Maybe just 
introduce something similar to the "IANA Considerations"?