On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Borman <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott, > > This is an informative reference, not a normative reference. I'd only see > this as an issue if it was the latter, which it isn't. The protocol > specification in 1323bis stands on its own, which is why it obsoletes 1323. > This is just an informative reference so the reader knows that the original > background material in 1323 was omitted in 1323bis, and they should look at > 1323 if they want that additional history. We decided there wasn't much > value in rewriting the background material to reflect current terminology and > situations, and instead just refer the reader to 1323, which can be read > within the 20+ year old context in which it was originally written. > > -David
It's a "structure of our documents" question. I don't know the answer because I've never seen this done before. Obsoleted RFCs are included in informational references all the time, but explicitly saying "if you want a more in-depth understanding, go look at the RFC that we are replacing with this one" made me wonder, and I didn't find an answer in a quick search. If you've investigated and this is normal, then great. Otherwise I'm sure one of my gen-art colleagues will have an answer for us very soon. If not, the IESG will. ... Scott _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
