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

Carsten,

I still think the points you make merit a discussion, there is also
at least one point that the authors should take care of.

Inline please,

On 2019-07-05 05:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05-Jul-19 04:50, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I hope the current high-volume threads (and the various holidays) still allow me to ask one question here:
>>
>> The current draft for the 7049bis document says:
>>
>>> This document obsoletes RFC 7049.
>>
>> Very clear to people who live and breathe RFCs.
>> What most everybody else will read from this is:
>>
>>> This document obsoletes all implementations of RFC 7049.

Yes - so it does, but if that is true it also lacks some info
in the header.

If the draft is written in xml the <rfc> element should look
somewhat like this:

<rfc category="info" docName="draft-xxxx-foo-bar-00"
      ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="7049">

That will generate

"Obsoletes: RFC 7049 (if approved)"

Which at least makes it clear for the in-experienced reader that
there is a condition to be fulfilled before RFC 7049 is obsoleted.

There is nothing that prevent authors to use the same language in
the abstract.

/Loa

>>
>> This is not at all what is going on, though.
>>
>> What I would really like to say is something like
>>
>>> This document is a revised edition of RFC 7049, with editorial improvements, added detail, and a few fixed errata.  The revision formally “obsoletes” RFC 7049, while keeping full compatibility of the interchange format — it does not create a new “version” of the format.
>>
>> But then I’m not a friend of scare quotes.
> 
> The text still works without them.
>   
>> What is the right way to say this?  Any examples to steal from?
> 
> It might have been better if, back in ancient times, the RFC Editor
> of the day had included "Replaces" among the options, because in
> many cases that is more heplful than "Obsoletes", which has more
> than one possible meaning. But we don't have that option.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with including a paragraph like you
> suggest, with a forward reference to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-06#appendix-F. Is that appendix complete?
> 
> RFC8200 is a bit different because it does make some substantive changes
> from RFC2460, and describes them at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#appendix-B.
> However, I wish 6man had thought to include a similar paragraph.
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
> 
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest