Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 2/23/2021 9:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> (2) References from RFCs.  These need to be, at least by
> default, exact.  The flexibilities that are an advantage with
> the above can be a liability here.  Why? Because it is not
> unusual for the substantive content of an I-D to change as work
> evolves and consensus emerges (or doesn't).  If, for example,
> version NN of an I-D said "the outside of the bikeshed MUST be
> painted blue", version NN+1 said "the outside of the bikeshed
> MUST be painted lime green" and explained why, it would be very
> important if an RFC that referenced it for color choices point
> to the version the RFC's author intended and not some other
> version.  Would it be important for the reader to find out that
> there is a later version in which things might have changed?
> Sometimes, but only the document author is likely to know.

Or, take the example of an Internet draft that ends up abandoned. 
References to such drafts are not rare. Now, what is also not rare is 
for the author of the abandoned draft to come back and "tombstone" it. 
You certainly don't want the reference to magically be updated and point 
to the tombstone.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest