Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 29 March 2017 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE74D1296C7 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6-5kbgZ1N_3 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B496E1294D8 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2TCaiEV001901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:36:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1490791005; bh=Pj/PSwihpiuMb4GEXFiMvJKBzGce0kTreccgQH1VIs0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZNnseCUKs67jDUd7uLW89t9NEwCpiTIuQM9wmwhonCYbSPy6SEo7oo7WoueguAOH3 yVI3ATxWCwdOHBMVxnAfB/EBz5XZ1SCO++JRGSl6r3pGlS2puLTbi14VlgJVNzP4lu LHEYaahA7+Tbn5pVtwhfc8jfCAQzEgyrfWs2rUJ8=
Subject: Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification
To: Yoav Nir <>
References: <> <>
Cc: IETF general list <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:34:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:34:45 -0000

On 3/29/2017 7:19 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I question how useful it is.  The obsoletes/obsoletedBy relationship is
> semantically overloaded. Consider the header of RFC 4306:


Thanks for the thoughtful (and quick) response.  Yes, the total model 
and application of its details are more complicated.  But I found myself 
relying on a very simple distinction:

If someone wants to do research and explore old stuff, they can still do 
that.  The can still merrily wander the link sequences.

However "Obsoleted By" means "don't use the old stuff".

So if one merely wants to get (or wants to cite) the most recent version 
of what they /should/ use, then the feature I'm suggesting will support 
that.  More easily and reliably than can happen now.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking