Re: latest missing replaced-by information

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Lars,

On 2012/04/18 17:49, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's yet another installment in the series of reports on potentially missing "replaced-by" relationships in the IETF datatracker.

> (Note that the IPR disclosure search tool uses these replaced-by relationships, so keeping them up-to-date is actually useful and not just WG hygiene.)
>
> Lars

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> APP Area
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

> EAI Working Group, APP Area
>     draft-duerst-eai-mailto POTENTIALLY REPLACED BY draft-ietf-eai-mailto

No. Your tool got it right that there's a relationship, but 
draft-ietf-eai-mailto was an attempt at doing some work in an earlier 
incarnation of the EAI WG (-00: February 18, 2008; -01: March 9, 2009).

On the other hand, draft-duerst-eai-mailto is newer (-00: March 7, 2011; 
-01: September 7, 2011; -02: March 12, 2012; -03: March 26, 2012). So 
your tool could eliminate the above proposal by looking at the 
publication dates.

draft-duerst-eai-mailto is an 'individual' draft currently waiting for 
the WG to complete some higher priority work first (work on mailto: is 
in the charter of the EAI WG). It is possible that in the future, 
draft-duerst-eai-mailto will be replaced by (-02 of) 
draft-ietf-eai-mailto, but the choice of name for that future WG draft 
would be up to the chairs. (Your advice on whether that's a good idea 
would be appreciated; see also next paragraph.)

I would have to dig up the details, but I think it currently would be 
more appropriate to say draft-ietf-eai-mailto (POTENTIALLY) REPLACED BY 
draft-duerst-eai-mailto. Is such a thing possible? Is that 
necessary/helpful?

>     draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis POTENTIALLY REPLACED BY draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis

Yes indeed. Tools 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-16) has this 
right, so I wonder why it's "POTENTIALLY" here.

Regards,   Martin.