On 08/02/2017 04:45, Barry Leiba wrote:
Hi, Stewart.
The above text raises an interesting problem. If the update system works
then
the text should read [RFC2119]. If the update system does not work than
the text needs to be [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] as shown, but we also need to move
to a system where we always list the update set at the time of publication,
It took me a while to get what you mean here, but I think I have it:
you're saying that because this document (RFC xxxx) UPDATES RFC 2119,
*any* document that cites RFC 2119 and is published after this one
must automatically be taken to refer to this one and must follow the
terms of this one.
Huh? If a document refers to RFC2119, it refers to 2119. That might be
a bug in the document, but I don't think we've ever said that updates
propagate by magic in that way. (We have said that the current system
is broken, because implementers have to follow a daisy chain to find out
the latest versions of everything, but that's a different problem.)
Recommending that future documents cite [BCP14] would simplify life.
The RFC Editor knows how to handle that.
Brian