On 6/5/16, 5:10 PM, "ietf on behalf of Barry Leiba"
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of
barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
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.
Phwew!
I think there is consensus on this: The authors are expected to do the right
thing. In most cases, but not all, the right thing to do is to update a
reference when the previous reference is obsoleted. One size does not fit all.
Barry, do you have updated text to capture the outcome of this long thread?
Tony Hansen