Subject: Son-of-1036

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:58:34 GMT

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that it is "Superseded by RFC5536 and RFC5537" (that is in addition to the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).
They also asked for a mention that RFC822 is now replaced by 5532.

Is there anything else that might cause confusion and that should be
warned against?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      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

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:29:04 +0200

Hi Charles,

> 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")

> Is there anything else that might cause confusion and that should be

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.

Thanks for all your work, Charles.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Hâte-toi de bien vivre et songe que chaque jour
  est à lui seul une vie. » (Sénèque)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:35:35 GMT

>(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.

>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.

---

From: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:28:06 +0300

> and that s-o-1036 was just a useful stopgap on the way to that goal.

It would make the connection (and their relation) explicit in indexes.  It
seems to me to be a useful thing.

-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/