>> Would anyone object, and would this address your concern, Stephen, if >> I should change the text like this: >> >> OLD >> If information for registered items has been or is being moved to >> other documents, then, of course, the registration information should >> be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it >> reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document >> for any registries or registered items that are still in current use. >> NEW >> If information for registered items has been or is being moved to >> other documents, then the registration information should be changed >> to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation >> references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document >> for registries or registered items that are still in current use. >> END > > That is better, but I'm still worried that it'd be used by well meaning > folk to force authors to do more work than is needed for no real gain. > > My preferred OLD/NEW would be: > > OLD > If information for registered items has been or is being moved to > other documents, then, of course, the registration information should > be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it > reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document > for any registries or registered items that are still in current use. > NEW > If information for registered items has been or is being moved to > other documents, then the registration information should be changed > to point to those other documents. Ensuring that registry entries > point to the most recent document as their definition is encouraged > but not necessary as the RFC series meta-data documents the relevant > relationships (OBSOLETED by etc) so readers will not be misled. > END Well, and *that* is so fluffy that I strongly object to it. I think it's bizarre to directly say that it's unnecessary and you don't need to worry about it. I can't think of any other place where we so casually accept stale references. For example, we flag I-Ds that point to obsolete references and ask for justification to leave them in... otherwise, they're updated before or by the RFC Editor (usually before). I think the change I've already proposed is a reasonable compromise. "In most cases" isn't "in all cases". Barry