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

[Дилян Палаузов <[e-mail]>]

Hello Carsten,

this discussion is now out of any context.

A RFC can be updated, obsoleted, moved to historic.  When it is updated, the reader has to read both the original and
the update to understand the whole concept.  When it is obsoleted, the reader has to read only the obsoleting
document.  When it is moved to historic, the reader does not have to read anything.

As an examle: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426 contains at the top "Obsoleted by: 6350".  For this to happen, RFC
6350 states: “This document obsoletes RFCs 2426”.

If 7049bis states ... “obsoletes” RFC 7049, then https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049 will be changed to state in the
upper lines:

“Obsoleted” by RFC (7049bis) - with the quotes.  So far no RFC is obsoleted by using quotes on the verb.

The wording “This document obsoletes RFC 7049.” does appear in many replaced RFC, but in no means shall be understood as
neglecting the work of the authors of those RFCs.

As far as the wording “This document obsoletes all implementations of RFC 7049.” is concerned, without knowing the
details, I would say, that if the changes are backwards compatible, then the implementations are not obsoleted and this
shall be addressed in first place to the authors of 7049bis.

For the record, if you mean https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-06 or 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-05, you are mentioned as author and I do not find inside the string
“This document obsoletes all implementations of RFC 7049”.    Appendix F “Changes from RFC 7049” does not sound like
this.

The right way to tell the reader, that she has to read only the new document, is to state in the new document, that the
old one is obsoleted.

Regards
  Дилян

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 18:50 +0200, 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> What is the right way to say this?  Any examples to steal from?
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest