On 16 Feb 2006, at 10:48 AM, David Shaw wrote:
If the language in 1991 is suitable, perhaps we could just point to
1991. Is it legal to refer in this way to a document that we're
obsoleting in 2440bis?
I don't think so. 1991 was never standards track. I don't want to re-
open the old dead horse of whether you can obsolete something that
was never standards track. It's too much like Alice's comment on more
tea.
Furthermore, it would committing a sin that drives me up the wall, of
requiring someone to go back N documents. If the language in 1991 is
close, then why not edit it into something suitable? I think that's
much better than leaving pointers all over the place for people who
read it a decade from now to have to deal with.
Jon