To:
Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
cc:
James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:01:35 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To:
<OFFF4D1C80.209E83D8-ON802576D6.00374635-802576D6.00384C63@nominet.org.uk>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted forReview
Hi Ray, James et al. On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk wrote: > BTW, §10 (Acknowledgements) says that this doc _updates_ 4310 and refers > readers to that document's acknowledgements section, whereas elsewhere > it's clear that it obsoletes it. Yep, "updates" is inaccurate here: --> s/updates/obsoletes/ (I just notified an author of 3761bis about this inaccuracy as I "stole" that sentence from 3761bis before suggesting it to James...) > There's also an informative reference to 4310. I don't believe it's > permitted to both obsolete a document and refer to it at the same time. To obsolete a document one needs to refer to it. I don't see a reason why this should not be permitted. There are many examples which include a reference to the document they obsolete, e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226 cheers, Bernie