Re: I-D Action: draft-roach-bis-documents-00.txt

[Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/8/19 9:52 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

I like the approach in this document and think it is a useful improvement in how we handle the revision problem.

Thinking about it, there is one issue that it does not address, that seems relevant, and that I am not sure how to handle.

What should be done about other documents that update the base document.  We have RFC A, updated by RFCs B and C.  We are now producing Abis. For the specific purpose of fixing a couple of narrow issues that really need to be addressed.
What should this narrow Abis say about B and C?

I suspect this is also something that working groups will want to decide on a case-by-case basis. I tried to address this, to some degree, at the bottom of section 3.1:

   Although not a strict qualification, working groups and authors of
   documents using this process should carefully evaluate all verified
   errata on the original RFC and all RFCs that formally update the
   original RFC to determine which, if any, the new document should
   incorporate.

This might benefit from an expanded treatment, although I don't want to be too prescriptive about what working groups might consider when determining what updates make sense to incorporate or otherwise explicitly reference.

/a