On 08/02/2017 04:45, Barry Leiba wrote: > Hi, Stewart. > >> The above text raises an interesting problem. If the update system works >> then >> the text should read [RFC2119]. If the update system does not work than >> the text needs to be [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] as shown, but we also need to move >> to a system where we always list the update set at the time of publication, > > It took me a while to get what you mean here, but I think I have it: > you're saying that because this document (RFC xxxx) UPDATES RFC 2119, > *any* document that cites RFC 2119 and is published after this one > must automatically be taken to refer to this one and must follow the > terms of this one. Huh? If a document refers to RFC2119, it refers to 2119. That might be a bug in the document, but I don't think we've ever said that updates propagate by magic in that way. (We have said that the current system is broken, because implementers have to follow a daisy chain to find out the latest versions of everything, but that's a different problem.) Recommending that future documents cite [BCP14] would simplify life. The RFC Editor knows how to handle that. Brian