Hiya,
On 03/06/16 20:47, Barry Leiba wrote:
Would anyone object, and would this address your concern, Stephen, if
I should change the text like this:
OLD
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
NEW
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then the registration information should be changed
to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation
references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document
for registries or registered items that are still in current use.
END
That is better, but I'm still worried that it'd be used by well meaning
folk to force authors to do more work than is needed for no real gain.
My preferred OLD/NEW would be:
OLD
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
NEW
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then the registration information should be changed
to point to those other documents. Ensuring that registry entries
point to the most recent document as their definition is encouraged
but not necessary as the RFC series meta-data documents the relevant
relationships (OBSOLETED by etc) so readers will not be misled.
END
Well, and *that* is so fluffy that I strongly object to it. I think
it's bizarre to directly say that it's unnecessary and you don't need
to worry about it. I can't think of any other place where we so
casually accept stale references. For example, we flag I-Ds that
point to obsolete references and ask for justification to leave them
in... otherwise, they're updated before or by the RFC Editor (usually
before).
xml2rfc handles updated references. You're arguing for authors to do
a load of manual grunt work for IMO no benefit. So I do think those
are quite different.
I think the change I've already proposed is a reasonable compromise.
"In most cases" isn't "in all cases".
I accept that you think that:-)
Do you think "in most cases" would have meant you and the author
concerned would/would-not have had that discussion a couple of years
ago? If you would have had it anyway, then I don't think "in most
cases" is usefully different from the OLD text.
And to go back to the nub or the argument, I don't think we have IETF
consensus for that (but you do). I note that so far we only have people
disagreeing with the current draft text.
S.
Barry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature