>> The issue iirc is that if say RFCxxxx is obsoleting RFCyyyy >> must the IANA considerations in RFCxxxx say that all the >> registries that used point at RFCyyyy need to be updated to >> point at RFCxxxx? I don't think that needs to be done (but >> it can be done). I think Barry's position, and the text of >> the 5226bis draft say that it has to be done. > > seems like a good make-work requirement with little actual benefit > > of course, if the details of the registry changed with the replacement > RFC that is a different case Well, the point is that RFCyyyy defined the BANANA option for protocol LMNOP, so it registered the BANANA option in the "LMNOP Options" registry, with a reference that points to RFCyyyy. Now we have a "yyyy-bis" that becomes RFCxxxx, and that is now the current definition of the BANANA option -- RFCyyyy is now obsolete. What is the point of having the reference in the registry? If it's needed at all, it should be kept current. Is it OK that it's left to point to the obsolete definition of the BANANA option? Is it better to change it to point to the current definition in RFCxxxx? Is it important to do that? Is it necessary to do that? What should BCP 26 say about that? Barry