Re: Son-of-1036

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:35:35AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> >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.

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/