Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no further comment.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote: Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group.
As for the nits:
[...] Yes, will correct.
-- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"."
Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without explanation? Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it?
Maybe, but I think the logic was that if there is some text there (just something), it can be cleanly referenced (i.e. "DELETED [RFCXXXX]")if someone is making a revised version of the RFC for some purpose. Purely deleting it accomplishes the task, but this provides a good "hook" for a paper trail.
Okay. On reflection, it's not like we really render the updates the old RFC documents.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf