----- Original Message ----- From: "Alia Atlas" <[email protected]> To: "Rob Austein" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:03 A
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Rob Austein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:40:00 -0800, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This looks like it obsoletes RFC6810 or perhaps updates it. > > > The draft header should show this so RFC meta-data is accurate. > > > > The authors had a loooonng discussion about this with our AD. > > We will do whatever he tells us to do here. :) > > I am not at all surprised - and that is why this is a Comment and not a > Discuss. > IMHO, a new implementor would want to be pointed to the most recent version > of the protocol. That indicates to me that an Updates is the minimum. > Then, > well, I'd have to dig to see what we've done with protocol RFCs when we > advance > the version number. Obviously, OSPF is not a good example here :-) Alia SMIv2 and SMIv1 are both INTERNET STANDARD. SNMPv1 was not obsoleted but eventually declared HISTORIC many years later. YANG 1.1 has no defined relationship to YANG 1.0 I think it unusual for Version N+1 to do anything other then coexist with Version N. Sometimes there is another document that spells it out, such as RFC3584 for SNMP or 6087bis for YANG but a user might never know of them (well, quite a few do not judging by the posts). Tom Petch > Regards, > Alia > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
