Subject: Why is a I-D obsolting a RFC?

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:28:13 -0700

Chair - why is a RFC being obsoleted by an Internet-Draft?

Seems to me like an impossibility. No I-D can in and of itself strip any 
RFC document without issuing a new RFC to replace the old one. Since an 
I-D is NOT a RFC this is an issue.

This is a problem per se like this one... 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-06

Todd Glassey

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:47:06 -0700

Todd Glassey wrote:
> Seems to me like an impossibility. No I-D can in and of itself strip 
> any RFC document without issuing a new RFC to replace the old one. 
> Since an I-D is NOT a RFC this is an issue.
>
I forgot to mention that per IETF rules the AutoKEY brief is also filed 
as Informational Only (per the current filing) and as such cannot 
possibly replace a standards-track document like RFC1305 (whether its 
better technology or not).

So we need to resolve this with a new NTP Standards Practice 
work-product which includes the v4 additions and the autokey security 
additions and the RFC needs to be re-set as "not Obsoleted" until the 
actual replacement work is published.

Todd
>
> Todd Glassey
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.109/2384 - Release Date: 09/20/09 06:22:00
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:09:08 -0400

Actually, looking at the documents, the only problem (if there is any 
problem at all) is that the draft, when it is published as an RFC, will 
update RFC 1305 rather than obsoleting it.  So the header line should 
probably say "updates" rather than "obsoletes."  And that is clearly 
allowed.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Your initial note seemed to be objecting to some other aspect of the 
process.  I-Ds are frequently labelled as to their intended status. 
That labelling is perfectly legitimate, and is understood only to take 
effect when and if the document is published as an RFC.    So your 
initial question points to a non-issue.

Todd Glassey wrote:
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 
>> 270.13.109/2384 - Release Date: 09/20/09 06:22:00
>>
>>   
>

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:27:37 -0700

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> problem at all) is that the draft, when it is published as an RFC, 
> will update RFC 1305 rather than obsoleting it.  So the header line 
> should probably say "updates" rather than "obsoletes."  And that is 
> clearly allowed.
RFC1305 is a standards track document. This is published for 
informational purposes. I just want the paperwork right for the standard.

Todd
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> PS: Your initial note seemed to be objecting to some other aspect of 
> the process.  I-Ds are frequently labelled as to their intended 
> status. That labelling is perfectly legitimate, and is understood only 
> to take effect when and if the document is published as an RFC.    So 
> your initial question points to a non-issue.
>
> Todd Glassey wrote:
>> Todd Glassey wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that per IETF rules the AutoKEY brief is also 
>> filed as Informational Only (per the current filing) and as such 
>> cannot possibly replace a standards-track document like RFC1305 
>> (whether its better technology or not).
>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:33:10 -0400

Todd:

The "(if approved)" is in the header for a reason ....

Once the WG is finished with the document, they will send it to the 
IESG for consideration.  That will result in a Last Call.  That seems 
to be the time to offer advice to the IESG.  At this point, I belive 
you should be offering advice to the WG.

Russ