Case in point: TCP MD5. This was obsoleted by TCP-AO, but the TCP option
number for TCP MD5 should not be changed to point to AO. It might be
appropriate to add a note that this codepoint represents an obsoleted
protocol or even to point to the new one - or not. It depends on the
codepoint.
Sure, this is a very different situation. The most current
documentation for the code point for TCP MD5 is the obsolete document.
So that's fine. TCP AO will have a new code point, with a current
reference. As I've said before, the "in current use" clause is what
applies here: It's not just that the documentation for TCP MD5 has
been updated and we're thinking about whether we should point the
reference to the new document. It's that TCP MD5 itself has been made
obsolete.
Yes, as you say (and as I say), the point is to do what's right. I
contend that in most cases, the right thing is to update the reference
*when we produce a more current reference*. If we have not done that,
then we should not do that.
And also as you say (and as I say), we always want to leave
flexibility to use our heads and do the right thing. That's why I'm
very happy to move away from the "in no case" phrase, to something
such as "in most cases." I pretty much *always* want to allow people
to make sensible judgments, and not to stand behind firm, inflexible
rules.
Barry