The issue iirc is that if say RFCxxxx is obsoleting RFCyyyy
must the IANA considerations in RFCxxxx say that all the
registries that used point at RFCyyyy need to be updated to
point at RFCxxxx? I don't think that needs to be done (but
it can be done). I think Barry's position, and the text of
the 5226bis draft say that it has to be done.
seems like a good make-work requirement with little actual benefit
of course, if the details of the registry changed with the replacement
RFC that is a different case
Well, the point is that RFCyyyy defined the BANANA option for protocol
LMNOP, so it registered the BANANA option in the "LMNOP Options"
registry, with a reference that points to RFCyyyy.
Now we have a "yyyy-bis" that becomes RFCxxxx, and that is now the
current definition of the BANANA option -- RFCyyyy is now obsolete.
What is the point of having the reference in the registry? If it's
needed at all, it should be kept current. Is it OK that it's left to
point to the obsolete definition of the BANANA option? Is it better
to change it to point to the current definition in RFCxxxx? Is it
important to do that? Is it necessary to do that? What should BCP 26
say about that?
Barry