Re: [dtn] Obosoleting indicators in drafts

["Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[e-mail]>]

Okay, I'll post again this afternoon.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 7:33 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) 
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Obosoleting indicators in drafts

Hi Scott,

On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 13:18 +0000, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:
> Thanks, Magnus, I will put whatever words are needed wherever they need to 
> go
> in order to get us finally moving forward, but I would like not to have to
> cycle through this process too many more times.  My understanding has been
> that the bpv7 document cannot "obsolete" RFC5050, it can only *request* that
> IRTF do so; I think that's the sense of 
> https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and yesterday's message 
> from the WG
> chairs.  But if the "obsoletes" header will pass the nits check then I will
> happily try once again.

I agree we can only request it. But that request should go into a paragraph 
that
has an RFC-editors note that it will be deleted prior to publication.

The Obsolete header and the sentence in abstract and introduction are for what
the you and the WG intendes to be published in the end. So in this case you 
have
to assume that the IRTF will agree. Which we have strong indication that they
will do.

Does that clarify why I want things in this way.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:03 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> ; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Obosoleting indicators in drafts
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> With the WG chairs decision regarding the consenus on obsoleting the earlier
> documents I want to get some form things correct in the documents.
>
> 1. Please use the header line "Obsoletes: RFCXXXX" as tooling uses this.
>
> 2. Abstract and Introduction do need to say that they are obsoleting some
> documents and list them. It is fine to note that this are IRTF Stream
> documents
> for extra clarity here.
>
> 3. Scott added a sentence about requesting Obsoletion from IRTF. That is 
> also
> fine, but please do that in a separate statement that has an RFC-editor note
> that the text shall be removed prior to publication. As the request does not
> matter when the document has been published, then 1 and 2. fulfills the
> purpose
> to indicate the obsoletion and the fact that it was cross stream one.
>
> I am also assuming that BPSec will obsolete RFC 6257 and that TCPCL will
> obsolete RFC7242. As I don't know these documents in detail, if there are 
> any
> significant function that is now defined in your documents that was defined 
> in
> another RFC then we need to consider to include that also. Here I primarily
> wonder if there are parts of RFC 5050 that was moved into BPSec or TCPCLv4?
> The
> intention here is to ensure that if one look up RFC 5050 in the future one
> will
> get a list of all documents that defines the replacing definition.
>
> Great that we finally are almost ready to proceed to IESG Evaluation.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------