IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 05 July 2019 09:03 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 F2C521200CE for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 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] 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 DKKLkacKjG_v for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:19 -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 24C5F1200B2 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0146B81FBC; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:08 -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 0F3D9B81FBC for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:07 -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 cBUQaV2N8FPU for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E5EB81FBB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 02:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.8] (c83-250-135-99.bredband.comhem.se [83.250.135.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E10133F5AF; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:03:14 +0200 (CEST)
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <0C1D43B8-84A1-496C-A866-4D3C6E56139B@tzi.org> <aa47fce0-4390-dc7a-0bab-ca55dd148b7f@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <cfdbec3d-291a-ee35-bf4d-1460b65b03e6@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:03:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <aa47fce0-4390-dc7a-0bab-ca55dd148b7f@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Brian,

On 2019-07-05 05:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> It might have been better if, back in ancient times, the RFC Editor
> of the day had included "Replaces" among the options, because in
> many cases that is more heplful than "Obsoletes", which has more
> than one possible meaning. But we don't have that option.

Are you saying that (given good motivations and rough consensus) the
RFC Editor could add "replace" to the options (or even have "replace"
obsolete "obsolete")?

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
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