IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 03:17 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 A4B671200E7 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:17:03 -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 aYnHKsAHYOdi for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:17:01 -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 962131200D7 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFB2B82335; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:16:51 -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 77DCFB82335 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:16:50 -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 HxXuhYdBg47h for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com (mail-pf1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0516B82334 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id y15so3659255pfn.5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5IGxrZVKVRMA2WdPfKq/otUYKTka7vYMDxMkGm0XjrQ=; b=TP7vA5Ur8ZqJ8hKiTHw6cuUT362g/n3bqOjrDPeeVTRs3+/Dy3uJ78SJs8y+RU3mXW wHcOqnw89tpbzjVGk8SkXa8GClU9FSFY5EN3yZUS64FCbzhpSOKxdk/Nuu/+qQ/AsuC2 VCKyGgTlItAZ59JrmzZdvTh9T+zHallsl/EQQReSY5013qP93AM48fRV32fckizBc7G2 dwqck0hKNIzSwxajd9VB1s5+Rgc3gAx4qynH8FNzy7KAXRlboed7DuvN6rP58vr8KVPz oM+JYOgoDppUApBwvSrWMAHXWET6rKlsOlmM+dl+1oNSq1ZC9Ak6pmxNiX/oQuujZ7CF Rcew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5IGxrZVKVRMA2WdPfKq/otUYKTka7vYMDxMkGm0XjrQ=; b=JZOrlHz5j6OfX7MM5aEnq1127x2SRHF8MXPMZE+J5m737YBVI8gJlJIXWZ5rnNp57x QOD/9dbvdJUBu0YzoLCXIExNNUzzTgHCwpiZubH63mXqcS0lLWBZN/QrjuE2OMDPp8cX bezn8LRBXmTKr9k1HWi/OLjuFsdMvz502dbYczXoMJcjU4+bxW4FHNv9enRCGuaB72M9 gT70EUYj0Q8moZZAOrm7T3SndQebV7jAA81ipIgSkhxxytg2kQ27RcRpJpBXd8rjR45s okHGHgzyJC2S7ZHTOV1lOp9As6Jsw5JlNZOQO6ELJnCwS1xonRL9Q8Sk2rWoGiQR5G1Y OsVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV71H3mLz+f4Xvi/a9JnzyHTKtv9oGgu9k64c7y4V5xhzHJVp2q cHx/9pk7Z8jvXResuojIKB5IeWf4
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw05FOe8YNovF52NVFqletfolfwTssqeAPofelZWvzsqFideiugCaVBJqSkebLA64MjFaXoAA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5687:: with SMTP id v7mr2057750pgs.263.1562296617056; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:16:57 -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 w14sm9086629pfn.47.2019.07.04.20.16.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa47fce0-4390-dc7a-0bab-ca55dd148b7f@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:16:54 +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: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@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>
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 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.
> 
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email