Hiya, On 03/06/16 20:47, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> 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). xml2rfc handles updated references. You're arguing for authors to do a load of manual grunt work for IMO no benefit. So I do think those are quite different. > > I think the change I've already proposed is a reasonable compromise. > "In most cases" isn't "in all cases". I accept that you think that:-) Do you think "in most cases" would have meant you and the author concerned would/would-not have had that discussion a couple of years ago? If you would have had it anyway, then I don't think "in most cases" is usefully different from the OLD text. And to go back to the nub or the argument, I don't think we have IETF consensus for that (but you do). I note that so far we only have people disagreeing with the current draft text. S. > > Barry >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>