Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E801294C5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQ5ihdarYoOW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8129D120726 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id y18so152817344itc.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=9Udth2GeU0z8oqFOsk8LIxyaZuleHVqemAQPK7cRmh0=; b=GtZQWnsawBsKkWNueBsGt4i+c1BPsvOuLujQcy4ZrfsGh7bplSRUHuA3LBikZKmWYG To6yZLgFuQywNMa6zlL2H5RElgbLY2m3b5bNaPO/kYQMidSdy2WHJf+Kxb918aBa31pa 4T7CNPGVZ5+XzTHlD9r6tj9TzKsLnlbTmbiRDKv1G0EAmejNSGBDxGZwVOaPKCE79cZT RDTgRyczasijtMUpBk7PWt7/u2vQg3qrxniB8/U6B0vtQlQKViEorKwdh26QfDpqVGMj 4kUvJhMgnZyHX9IcTHPyEE3jTtRdkavRemlRxIfCWs1s+q0VADqsK+Z7OX092M0ac3eB MBtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=9Udth2GeU0z8oqFOsk8LIxyaZuleHVqemAQPK7cRmh0=; b=UB3h3YanOhGXu0LzMlAcjWpbmORQ+51LPBQUBvr/Mei0LqeCShb1IH6FLy1FDzIoJF 9i19/kp/8IW763JLNj1ft3/Fv9WukfKKWv9T8NLw9OrbkOwkZKisST4k13LhJO3au5UO f3AQQ9BSkRsqOrKFQBaiBI0MZMUuvwE+AvqIUNQ9QXC8OZhrurAnc+QY6hUPb4hhtR87 IoD+eCxEkuuJW0ISySeWAIvQUyIGQoxfbk8zo9H9H6/ROSjTEzDfpuvY7rDRj//PH0FE 7ctugYE4j0I4EDwucCKx0km1lT07V2WBziz06rknzdVPBbZXNxt8kecSEFprCMnuafeg i+eQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3kUuOdJ6qDgszWY8+phQO7kdjF0A2M/1rvxD/PSDMlwzXKD2HfFdNKh6izYTGdBQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.184.71 with SMTP id m68mr1376234ite.8.1490795814845; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from t2001067c03700128509a7ded3cb9d2c7.v6.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c03700128509a7ded3cb9d2c7.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:128:509a:7ded:3cb9:d2c7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x26sm279481ita.1.2017.03.29.06.56.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BF7A45FE-A989-4E06-8883-088959139614@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E17F0C4-4A43-48B3-B110-4B3F61806420"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:56:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <de157331-d3ff-483c-b69b-116f4d1cde0b@dcrocker.net>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <94f81f6a-6a34-6587-a4f7-683586c2f436@dcrocker.net> <38BC1BB4-0996-4138-BEE0-58CD4F2B867B@gmail.com> <de157331-d3ff-483c-b69b-116f4d1cde0b@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p9_BKVBI52aZ_eaZR4x8-C9MPys>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:57:03 -0000

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 7:34, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> 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:
> 
> Yoav,
> 
> 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.
> 

Right. It is a useful thing (and may be a task for next IETF’s code sprint).  People should just know that they might get surprising results.

Yoav