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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 16:39 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 1A993120180 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=Gga2tlg+; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=PQ+h4vd9
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 Ic_Y4079vMED for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:45 -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 30D3412018B for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23541B81DFB; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:34 -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 B1ADCB81DFB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=Gga2tlg+; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=PQ+h4vd9
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 ye8Ra8OgzRTq for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B22B81DFA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.147.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x65GdQk8006304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1562344779; x=1562431179; bh=hX9Ilv8nXsahmC4lRSaGqKI1Mius2mJZhcNDKAtaWeM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Gga2tlg+PrTnPeUeDhS4tqK7UyZggziF/Rb2R8RwcyRnMJI9rhOAL2uEX8sc8oxY4 fQ5ZdY1aQmumMqanTmt1Q1DQQmmobXe78BUYpxHp5Bn2nU3h0TZvthvyGkRZ/nyvSG /sbmLgb9/ttx+lG77eV20uFg9mscR3q4+ZYxAmUE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1562344779; x=1562431179; i=@elandsys.com; bh=hX9Ilv8nXsahmC4lRSaGqKI1Mius2mJZhcNDKAtaWeM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=PQ+h4vd9BQN8KWOnf1qpbzHsh0oJq16/5XMDWpgHDgqgrM/THysFpuVUj/R5Zw201 TVI0BrMDPleU3cs8XnxJSUwC/BA3tiGHSHwGLyFVv8emcM4t7tgEdySjpMjvt1qH+B 2P5qo6yjzDhL5ajvl5LrGgwS3sdXaNzoEiARIT3g=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190705092949.08217f10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:38:32 -0700
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Carsten,
At 09:50 AM 04-07-2019, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>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.

For what it is worth, what you described above 
sounds like an update of the specification.  The 
"obsoletes" informs the reader that there is a 
more recent version of the specification.

>What is the right way to say this?  Any examples to steal from?

Please see Section 1 of RFC 5322.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

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