Re: [Tools-discuss] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04 HTML page

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

26.04.2011 18:28, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
Since there is nobody who managed to understand my complaint and it is 
very unlikely somebody who would understand it will appear, I see there 
is no sense in continuing this discussion.  I won't insist on any 
actions regarding it, even though I do not renounce my complaint.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>> I complained about Rfcmarkup tool analyzing the draft's name, not its contents when deciding to put pr not to put some RFC as the previous version of the draft.  It is logically useful when some draft obsoletes another RFC when approved, eg. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-00 where we have "(RFC 1150) 00" label.
>>
>> The draft I pointed to has no any regulations regarding obsoleting anything; Rfcmarkup, though, added the label of RFC 5892 being the previous version of it.  My complaint was about abnormal handling of the draft name/header while finding out Obsoletes/Updates relationships.
> With all due respect, your first complaint was without any merit. Your new complaint, that the header listing an RFC as a version of a draft as being "abnormal", is silly as well. The link there is advisory and for the benefit of someone reading the current draft. If you don't like that link, ignore it.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>