Re: 2119bis

Frank,

2119bis is going to replace RFC 2119, and "Obsoletes: 2119" header is 
fine here.  "Updates:" header means that some changes are made, and 
these specific changes are clearly indicated; 2119bis imports all the 
content of 2119 plus adding own changes, and is a significant update of 
2119, so "Updates: 2119" is inappropriate (sorry for pun).
I would rather object to making RFC 2119 Historic; I remember RFC 2026 
discusses such case (probably Section 6.3, which is also applicable to 
BCPs).  So, the following change is necessary:
Abstract and Introduction (similar text).  OLD: "If approved, this 
document obsoletes RFC 2119 and changes its status to Historic."; NEW: 
"This document obsoletes RFC 2119."
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

30.08.2011 1:15, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 23:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> > staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for
> > long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to
> > obsolete RFC 2119.
> There are literally thousands of documents (not only RFCs, also W3C
> standards, etc.) with normative references to RFC 2119 (sic!) instead
> of BCP 14, and I see no compelling reason to render these references
> as "historic".
>
> For starters simply confirm the erratum, I don't see why that caused
> you headaches.
>
> IMO it is not necessary (but allowed) to import any BCP 14 terms not
> actually used in a document, i.e., I disagree with section 4 in your
> draft.
>
> How about trying an "updates 2119" and status BCP, where BCP 14 then
> consists of 2119 and 2119bis, and old RFC 2119 references are still
> okay "as is".
>
> Readers with difficulties to figure out what RFC 2119 meant might
> find the confirmed erratum and the "updated by 2119bis" with better
> answers.  Authors could use RFC 2119, 2119bis, or even BCP 14 in
> the references of new documents, where "BCP 14" would be new, IIRC
> RFC 2119 did not permit this -- fearing precisely what is happening
> now, somebody trying to update critical terms.  I think that your
> new definitions match precisely what RFC 2119 wanted, but I'm also
> almost sure that some old "2119 clients" will disagree.
>
> -Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf