> On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
> >
> > On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> >
> >>>> -- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
> >>
> >> Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
> >> that says "Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved)".
> >
> > The IESG put this into the nits check before my time. The Last Call and
> > publication announcements normally contain only the abstract, not the
> > metadata above, and I believe the thinking was that if you are a person who
> > scans through those announcements, you probably would (and would want to)
> > take notice of documents that purport to obsolete or update document that
> > you recognize. We could probably change the tool to add the metadata to the
> > announcements, but apparently quite a few people read "abstracting"
> > services that grab the abstracts of newly published documents. Not much we
> > can do for them.
> >
> > It's certainly useful to some folks. Necessary? (*Shrug*) Not enough wasted
> > bits for me to care one way or the other.
> >
> As a Gen-ART reviewer, I called it out for exactly the reasons Pete mentions,
> and care about the same amount :-) But putting it there seems to hurt nothing,
> and maybe help just a little bit in some cases.
That's your opinion. Others, myself included, strongly disagree.
Ned
