Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

It is also possible that a code point is being obsoleted by an RFC bis
document but is retained in the registry, in which case you want the
reference for that value to be to the obsolete RFC where it is
specified. Also, the IANA Considerations initially creating the
registry are not normally copied forward into a bis version, although
they can. So, the answer is that it depends. The only constant
principle, I think, is that the reference(s) for the registry and for
the code points in that registry should be the best references
reasonably available...

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> The issue iirc is that if say RFCxxxx is obsoleting RFCyyyy
>>> must the IANA considerations in RFCxxxx say that all the
>>> registries that used point at RFCyyyy need to be updated to
>>> point at RFCxxxx? I don't think that needs to be done (but
>>> it can be done). I think Barry's position, and the text of
>>> the 5226bis draft say that it has to be done.
>>
>> seems like a good make-work requirement with little actual benefit
>>
>> of course, if the details of the registry changed with the replacement
>> RFC that is a different case
>
> Well, the point is that RFCyyyy defined the BANANA option for protocol
> LMNOP, so it registered the BANANA option in the "LMNOP Options"
> registry, with a reference that points to RFCyyyy.
>
> Now we have a "yyyy-bis" that becomes RFCxxxx, and that is now the
> current definition of the BANANA option -- RFCyyyy is now obsolete.
>
> What is the point of having the reference in the registry?  If it's
> needed at all, it should be kept current.  Is it OK that it's left to
> point to the obsolete definition of the BANANA option?  Is it better
> to change it to point to the current definition in RFCxxxx?  Is it
> important to do that?  Is it necessary to do that?  What should BCP 26
> say about that?
>
> Barry
>