Re: Son-of-1036

In <0C8DE6FE57CF4FF9AEF423A2C16AE15B <at> Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
<julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

>Hi Charles,

>> The RFC Editor is proceeding with the draft I submitted in May. It will be
>> a Historic RFC as we had asked, but they want a line below that to state
>> that it is "Superseded by RFC5536 and RFC5537" (that is in addition to the
>> clear warnings in the Abstract and in the Preface to the effect that the
>> document is NOT to be considered as a basis for current implementations).

>Does it also imply that RFC 5536 and RFC 5537 will mention that they
>update that RFC when dislpayed on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/>?
>(just above "Category: Standards Track).

No. Both those documents contain non-normative references to s-o-1036, of
course, and hopefully they will refer to it via its republished form. But
I think those documents are already clear to to what they update (1036)
and that s-o-1036 was just a useful stopgap on the way to that goal.

>Shouldn't the date "3 May 2009" be changed to "2 June 1994"?  (and the sentence
>"This document is identical to the last distributed version of Son of 1036,
>dated 2 June 1994, except for reformatting" rewritten to say it was submitted
>on May, 3rd 2009)
>That date would highlight more the fact it is an *old* RFC.

>It is just a suggestion; maybe it is impossible to change that date.

I doubt it would be possible, and would create more confusion than it
removed. Its Preface makes it clear what its status is, and the redacted
document, as it will be republished, it certainly not the original test
from June 1994.

>Thanks for all your work, Charles.

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5