Hi, All:
I have seen two directorate review discussed the relation of unified property
new draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new) to
ALTO based
Protocol document (i.e.,RFC7285) and proposed to indicate this relation in the
RFC header.
I am thinking whether update or obsolete in the document header is to clarify
the relation to other RFCs.
See RFC2223 section 6:
"
6. Relation to other RFCs
Sometimes an RFC adds information on a topic discussed in a previous
RFC or completely replaces an earlier RFC. There are two terms used
for these cases respectively, Updates and Obsoletes. A document that
obsoletes an earlier document can stand on its own. A document that
merely updates an earlier document cannot stand on its own; it is
something that must be added to or inserted into the previously
existing document, and has limited usefulness independently. The
terms Supercedes and Replaces are no longer used.
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.
Obsoletes
To be used to refer to an earlier document that is replaced by
this document. This document contains either revised information,
or else all of the same information plus some new information,
however extensive or brief that new information is; i.e., this
document can be used alone, without reference to the older
document.
For example:
On the Assigned Numbers RFCs the term Obsoletes should be used
since the new document actually incorporate new information
(however brief) into the text of existing information and is
more up-to-date than the older document, and hence, replaces it
and makes it Obsoletes.
"
See RFC7322 section 4.14,
"
4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes
When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs,
this information is included in the document header. For example:
"Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
"Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ... , nnnn"
If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers
will be listed in ascending order.
"
Note than RFc7322 has obsoleted RFC2223.
I think "Update" is more close to what I am looking for since what we did is
Not to redefine the definition of "Unified property map or Entity property map"
Instead, we adds definitions to the existing RFC(i.e., entity property map).
The content of the existing RFC is not invalidated by the new RFC and is
still needed to implement the endpoint property map in the base protocol
in some cases, but for some other cases when the endpoint property map falls
short,
we will got for unified property map defined in unified property new draft.
Therefore my understanding, is endpoint property map and entity property map
Have its own use cases, can be used separately, in other words, use of endpoint
property
Map and use of entity property map are mutually exclusive, even though like
this,
We should still label update in the document header.
If there is disagreement on this, please speak up and comment on this. Thanks!
-Qin (with chair hat on)
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
