IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 17:05 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 CDCB5120161 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 2FgSj8083UxJ for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:05:02 -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 29E5A12024B for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC4DB81C1A; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:04:52 -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 C04CEB81C1A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:04:50 -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=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 J0hjPOsrPDdt for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 125A5B81C16 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id j6so14062241ioa.5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2T3pZC2ltk0rvEm9hdeO3d8pwAZmiwxM3XnKXcliHrY=; b=cHTmGOvfaKVgDf4Ef039ksSzX/ZqROnZa8Sopyz2WRs9ULisgzIB9aEwHW8jzxiEqt QqSmwMJKwFLz+eTFsLmsgde8CoyNbksaoZxl18TsFsrh33uZ38GvAHF/KTbaLfePGf6M qRsaoFeEdmaTVMyhgra0lSZHdDOMB30gt9zzgd1UVgNHLogwV29Dtvr1JhibzXnFXocx irlukbQy1RXf5M1e996g6NdOD0G+hnRGlbLbhU5EcpBySSOtHNfIlHSoWPWF7qbWGJXx 2TJe8KZFjdcMEzlie1qLPZcHT+9L4wXKZ3OGpuqjVqqwW93brKtdbdCwh41/eudKVozW SsgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2T3pZC2ltk0rvEm9hdeO3d8pwAZmiwxM3XnKXcliHrY=; b=UGx7tsNX6uF9W2OPA/gfW4v09FhKLtgLGkmdczfbST0kpDvL1AjKNBcqUuRQxzprvZ f9eOYGMUFOtU8tDcFOKb0QA1qEoNqH01WBw0Zkwyd8rGtk7Ed6Ob38HVGQMKClLdiCW2 D70L3v2l94Tn0EUMUmvxfzFkUwN7sXSgzufXx/0nJpK7Z+DN4MGgs3/F9KgvE4X7cCZv 2Fjt6a/Cd3mTshdhNyDEX7CSVPAEoSBoSBO30KC8Rtnga3l5o44OF5LlP07U0ebU9cc8 mMlOcliz0/Hd9BJe0ZcD0TcbrGwAzybVEfgRmH8AJd+hcgkicaxCCxo7TKW4nBjxOqVw RvdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWDd9MkRcP6+efS0NqLUStHjc4a8tytlCDYsfapgyn7j6D+9L2V zyfEUEo8k4wcDcjqypgVVu9CTtoTaRfd7sM0olMRWcZTQ98=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxnSwRS+g3zGSHr6Rh1gIUpTx308ZrUulxGGBX3aoGtlZH9A8q/glUry7KT1o70KogWBZV/1Ak73TjxPikYX2Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:6016:: with SMTP id i22mr48967051jac.56.1562259897082; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:04:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivW8UxyRK6DGPeTPV6mEt_4T=8X2ooUaT=FEeeQy4i9Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
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-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0463178085537172969=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

I agree with Carsten's underlying concern and also like his proposed
language.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 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
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

_______________________________________________
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