On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: […]
>> I guess my point was not the existence of the Appendix so much as the >> references to information in an RFC to be obsoleted by this draft, >> where ever it might occur. I guess these are informational reference, >> so they are by definition not necessary to fully understand this draft. >> But it still seems odd to me to reference information in a RFC >> obsoleted by this one, rather than pull the material forward (perhaps >> in an appendix). I tend to read "obsolete" to mean there's really no >> reason to ever read it other than historical ones. That is, for most >> practical reasons, we could pretend it no longer existed. I realize >> this is a point of process more than a content issue, so if others are >> okay with it, I will back away :-) > > My interpretation was that obsolete referred to the current validity of the > specification aspects, but not that the obsolete RFC couldn't be referred to > for informational purposes. > > I don't care strongly; perhaps others could advise on a course of action > here. > >From separate email, I gather the aforementioned "others" share your >viewpoint. So at this point I suggest leaving it as-is. >> >> That works for me--except there's a vestigial SHOULD in section 5. (and >> a 2119 reference for the purpose of saying you aren't using it. I see >> nothing wrong with that, but it spins IDNits for a loop :-) ) >> > > The vestigial SHOULD is intentional; it is within a quoted sentence from RFC > 5681 so I am hesitant to change it for the sake of making idnits happy (under > the assumption that the RFC editor can later ignore this nit). > You are absolutely right--I was globally searching for 2119 words, and missed the context. Sorry for the confusion. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
