Re: [Gen-art] new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

[…]

>> I guess my point was not the existence of the Appendix so much as the
>> references to information in an RFC to be obsoleted by this draft,
>> where ever it might occur. I guess these are informational reference,
>> so they are by definition not necessary to fully understand this draft.
>> But it still seems odd to me to reference information in a RFC
>> obsoleted by this one, rather than pull the material forward (perhaps
>> in an appendix). I tend to read "obsolete" to mean there's really no
>> reason to ever read it other than historical ones. That is, for most
>> practical reasons, we could pretend it no longer existed. I realize
>> this is a point of process more than a content issue, so if others are
>> okay with it, I will back away :-)
> 
> My interpretation was that obsolete referred to the current validity of the specification aspects, but not that the obsolete RFC couldn't be referred to for informational purposes. 
> 
> I don't care strongly; perhaps others could advise on a course of action here. 
> 


From separate email, I gather the aforementioned  "others" share your viewpoint. So at this point I suggest leaving it as-is.

>> 
>> That works for me--except there's a vestigial SHOULD in section 5. (and
>> a 2119 reference for the purpose of saying you aren't using it. I see
>> nothing wrong with that, but it spins IDNits for a loop :-)  )
>> 
> 
> The vestigial SHOULD is intentional; it is within a quoted sentence from RFC 5681 so I am hesitant to change it for the sake of making idnits happy (under the assumption that the RFC editor can later ignore this nit).
> 

You are absolutely right--I was globally searching for 2119 words, and missed the context. Sorry for the confusion.