Re: [rfc-i] "Obsoleting" a perfectly valid document

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 05 July 2019 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A990F1200E3 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e5toniFqbBny for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95B251200CE for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03353B8207F; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AECB8207E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJjnbdEoLYss for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD88FB8207C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-0005.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0005.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45g8TJ1zr6zybC; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:20:36 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <cfdbec3d-291a-ee35-bf4d-1460b65b03e6@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:20:35 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 584011234.366457-4eae03f5ee311e44483b49be4035ebba
Message-Id: <3F1D368C-3E22-4A07-B4D1-C194C99A017A@tzi.org>
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org> <aa47fce0-4390-dc7a-0bab-ca55dd148b7f@gmail.com> <cfdbec3d-291a-ee35-bf4d-1460b65b03e6@pi.nu>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] "Obsoleting" a perfectly valid document
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Jul 5, 2019, at 11:03, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
> 
> Are you saying that (given good motivations and rough consensus) the
> RFC Editor could add "replace" to the options (or even have "replace"
> obsolete "obsolete")?

If we want to discuss changing the labels (my original question was more about trying to stay in the existing label set, but I’m also happy if there is a change):

RFC 1388 (RIPv2) “updated" RFC 1058 (RIPv1), the document.
It also obsoleted (not the RFC term) RIPv1 as a protocol.
RFC 1388 was “obsoleted” by RFC 1723, which still “updates” RFC 1058.
RFC 1723 in turn was obsoleted by RFC 2453, which no longer “updates” RFC 1058, apparently as it is standing on its own.
(RFC 1058 is historic now, so the question whether it was obsoleted by RFC 2453 is moot.)

I think it would be good if we could catch nuances like this.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest