IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 04 July 2019 16:51 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 6BE87120091 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.95 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Ch5wIj9AtBjr for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:51:02 -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 EBB7B12000E for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF9FB80E01; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:52 -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 DA770B80E01 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:50 -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 zpXMd3GcIUui for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:49 -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 576F0B80DFF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DC676.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.198.118]) (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 45fkWN0KDlz1069; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 18:50:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 583951853.9839489-3804d9df81d5a1c8531451c66c795ff4
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 18:50:55 +0200
Message-Id: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Subject: [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>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email