Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-03.txt

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 7/25/2018 11:00 AM, Vincent Roca wrote:
>> Le 25 juil. 2018 à 16:34, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>> Hi Vincent, one part of the shepherd write-up asks us to make sure that if any other RFCs are updated, obsoleted, etc., that it's indicated properly.
>>
>> As this document explains, it extends but doesn't replace RFC 6363.
>>
>> One could see this as a definite case for having it say "Updates: 6363" in the header.  Do you agree, or was there a reason I've forgotten why we decided not to indicate that?
> I think the question has never been asked like that.
>
> My first idea, back in 2016, was to replace RFC 6363 altogether.
> Then David had this key remark that in fact we just want to extend RFC 6363 and the title reflects this.
>
> I don’t know what « updates RFC 6363 » implies exactly. If « updates » implies « replaces » then the
> answer is no. RFC 6363 will remain as is, without any change, we just add a new capability to it.
>
> The new FECFRAME standard should now be understood as the combination:
> 	RFC 6363 + RFC XXX (this doc).
>

It sounds like "Updates" has the right semantics then.  What we don't 
want is "Obsoletes".

FYI, it's defined in 2223:

    Updates

       To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
       alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
       to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
       will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
       addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
       the original document.