IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 20:52 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 2B94512011B for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 LOGL0QZt4VjB for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:45 -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 EAAF3120119 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B259B80B1C; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:34 -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 C4C84B80B1C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6fvDIxirn-Ca for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254A0B80B16 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id m30so4760778pff.8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yl7QIQj04RxB81XDnQA0+p/EuDvS2Zorytmf8/1SmzA=; b=BAFYHhTV65egE7E+6uGXtBpSQ5wVd0hbufMRWdj+bIeDEfzeErvYHVOn4fNeQ+hDQE lnUtvysXXNNK3i98AT0qR2Xcnk87rZQ+3g+bmAVkyo45W6KWkbylByH8fNfrY5/vAgzn YI7AzDo8RkpBRH3gEQsWomMveTBCruLuFrTluCCs5Zf8a26Ot1rlJQnRozaVo3huP6od cw/VQl3HB9ccyHH0laSHXylkuiaelygDcIRsTiqWxsw6t9uSFhHdpHXiYRjUk2wUuXCE efAwyH+FxBNCaXoe2cKLh6sCO9Ghj2j24u9ALl9Up3Ro1JFeB5vv3ho8ypYpELGlrmv4 Je6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yl7QIQj04RxB81XDnQA0+p/EuDvS2Zorytmf8/1SmzA=; b=EJiEPLkAscy69y0T3GphKp9+eE2J0pPN/CFEfDM85XkIohVjlBOglTbmPeKLEnpg6K zy2vxgdVpsGeIyC7fSFPz4UrCNDJR7jscBmaKgz8RTeaOrTIV1Eo0KU4Hj6p6YJOtxJt qfdwFjR7Vx83fWqaOGjNqp14cs/xsubBC6jmuk6VTneRbnLF6qAuViwwqA4nS+nNdD91 1Bu69MH6h8d2nc/xOdh24VZ+kR5g2Zn3ufcaBzN1H8/0iZQLADB1B6a2pXZQESDy53sr lAreh0HJQYHUVMrgYqeQUJcU3WFN+DaRLNxCq71sc4Ym9xzaotndBKsuOfb102tKhtKm Z3Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOgdadi9yWlgoZQQdNQws+llNChMeFdvfjFbt2OgZ8IXgFjzKe K6T8RNaoHUAu3hUy3rJEks+ihUyh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw4jm320kfFEsfBO+wARkiukkCb1YQMY3xM2c9w8ReCWaccXqZAPHK4C2dds/2ExpecUCFWwg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:22aa:: with SMTP id s39mr7794810pjc.39.1562359958796; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (32.23.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.23.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm39036pje.1.2019.07.05.13.52.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org> <aa47fce0-4390-dc7a-0bab-ca55dd148b7f@gmail.com> <cfdbec3d-291a-ee35-bf4d-1460b65b03e6@pi.nu> <3F1D368C-3E22-4A07-B4D1-C194C99A017A@tzi.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <605c8dae-969b-0b19-89f4-e5645c829557@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 08:52:34 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3F1D368C-3E22-4A07-B4D1-C194C99A017A@tzi.org>
Content-Language: en-US
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 05-Jul-19 21:20, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but life is complicated and each case may be different.
While I do think that a "Replaces" tag would be useful, I think
it's really a standards process issue that the IETF should sort out
first, e.g. like this:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04

    Brian



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email