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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, June 06, 2016 10:18 +0000 "HANSEN, TONY L"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think there is consensus on this: The authors are expected
> to do the right thing. In most cases, but not all, the right
> thing to do is to update a reference when the previous
> reference is obsoleted. One size does not fit all.

Yes, but I think two other questions have been raised that now
should be addressed:

(1) Should advice to IANA about registry creation and content
include a recommendation as to whether citations from a registry
should be just "as designated by authors/registrants" (typically
"most recent") or should also contain a historical back-thread?

(2) Should registries be explicit as to whether the information
in them is self-contained (i.e., that citations from them are
for historical or contextual interest only) or abbreviated
pointers to definitional documents (i.e., those looking up a
parameter as expected to consult cited documents in order to
understand it and its use)?

    john