IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] What obsoletes what?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 18 February 2024 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34D7C14F68A for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMXiJRPpcZ1c for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C93BC14F689 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-5ce07cf1e5dso2917397a12.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708282983; x=1708887783; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tL4exdIkiZO5fI1hLU7eCE2B/27c7nLCL/SXRZXpxhY=; b=IEJoRXk3QXzneFKVTb+/SndN85NUWQ4Ihtc/v1He2rsjwcs92ApihPstEt03ElruWJ wvMcFdoO2RVk/k1K4sf8J0T4bfnRD7Gd+DYUWGOUP+AfLDKQs5O/+QoWlr+kBn+bljBp R2CCRUe7WC0TNHSwdls2HnsVj2vwJXMcSBYblwc4glZv28Dd4l7h7EtsxdVYD5kDKGC/ M4z5ZMP0QyXBi6tjAYaMX5FtBblsn5xvOx+HU9C63k7+qW5d1IzVNhwXOeGGgpskQ4Lp Fm4w6N6ALNcLnsfotsG5K+RZ5GJ3hdsQ7epjB+BRPmNc8vgb456pjHKMw3xVLXbWtDNW xhng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708282983; x=1708887783; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tL4exdIkiZO5fI1hLU7eCE2B/27c7nLCL/SXRZXpxhY=; b=Rj97rOmhXlrHZCa3PKSB8/4XUjOSCE4N6qxWvPkzTGOCTNQQa6r1DdpJBE/8t58fDm J0UzXXjkmGIOwpnwYi6W/d9RA2r1ZGnzKCfarkEdQObv8TDQcWT70k7l4gmE8V6hgcPL /nzY1ocZ8It/qZrVuuYgaa7wCF9NJIO2sp6OFhB/YAtrJ8mODVF4MZUU5y+52rakg0C+ tuNOq1XOyo67Z+ToTBaukvcRdWoRDFf+vg40RqhG7e9b2JF8D48xRt6PZ8ljYxklt+Fc F54DiEtmkS2gGUFjAgAehhUpEq+OmHjryhmMjuTG5rZir8Inr41e/Eq7PcbBmliaGjLG G2BA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxKBNmlSsC11PV/2/xY5K3TdTRBkZNkaawMdmuJaTNWzw9gaxXp KCfsy4KuhrmmNb1MQf/oad59KHcb/h9YFLZT4LiMYIm96uRY4HLX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEm/zNFtGHwzPVstb/OaM2l9pX9Wx91VsJo4zHj2HTWGL3ouvZaI7fmLZy4emJ3NRDo99P1MA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:9c8b:b0:19a:fad2:518b with SMTP id mj11-20020a056a209c8b00b0019afad2518bmr9847931pzb.5.1708282983050; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f10-20020a056a000b0a00b006e02f4bb4e4sm3404609pfu.18.2024.02.18.11.03.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54a3c5ee-4f5d-080e-dc5e-90b315fed351@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:02:57 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <9c7191d3-74d4-3d43-8f77-925191d12b5e@gmail.com> <CAA=duU2TpVAgOxyc3jt+33nCP2WxRLzr0dUhCxT0Ego15Zse=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2TpVAgOxyc3jt+33nCP2WxRLzr0dUhCxT0Ego15Zse=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/ZchfBL5XuKMhcwz4Ph4Ui25sMY8>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] What obsoletes what?
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:03:07 -0000

Andy,

I don't think there's an issue either. It looks like a reasonable decision taken by the IESG at the time, as does the RFC 6248/RFC 4148 case. As I said, I was interested in precedents.

Regards
    Brian

On 19-Feb-24 03:37, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> 1575 is a DS, and 1574 and 1575 were a bundle (they could have been written as one RFC), so I don't see the issue there.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 9:24 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     A few days ago I wanted to find out if there are precedents for an Informational RFC obsoleting a standards track RFC.
> 
>     TL;DR: RFC 6248 obsoleted a BCP (RFC 4148), and RFC1574 and RFC1575 *both* obsoleted a PS (RFC 1139).
> 
>     In the course of discovering this, I wrote a bit of code to extract the data from the RFC index, and here's a summary if anyone is interested.
> 
>     The index contains 1330 obsoleted RFCs.
> 
>     In 741 cases, the obsoleting RFC has the same status as the obsoleted RFC.
> 
>     For the others, here are the details. For example, there are 13 Internet Standard documents that obsoleted an RFC of status Unknown. (The diagonal is intentionally zero.)
> 
>           UNK HIS PS  DS  IS  BCP EXP INF   <-- new status
>     UNK 000 011 007 007 013 000 002 003
>     HIS 001 000 019 000 002 003 001 027
>     PS  000 006 000 100 028 003 000 001
>     DS  000 001 010 000 035 000 000 000
>     IS  000 000 002 001 000 000 000 000
>     BCP 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001
>     EXP 000 007 061 001 000 002 000 006
>     INF 000 004 032 001 001 018 000 000
>     |
>     |___old status
> 
> 
>     The code is at https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/obsol.py <https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/obsol.py>
> 
>     Regards
>          Brian Carpenter
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rfc-interest mailing list
>     rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>     https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email