Hi Rich,
there are few errata for RFC 6125 with different status (mostly Reported, but at least one - Held for Document Update) - <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6125> RFC Errata Report » RFC Editor (rfc-editor.org) I also think that authors of original RFC should be contacted and asked whether they want to co-author bis document (and one of errata was reported by them). Regards, Valery. · I believe the “obsoleting” path is a better choice here. In general, the “Updates” field can be interpreted in different ways, while “Obsoletes” is straightforward. In addition, 6125 does not have other documents updating it, so that information would not be lost by obsoleting it. Just be mindful of the risk of re-discussing old points not in scope of the current I-D, as Michael says. So a full replacement. Apply the current draft as a patch and post the result as the new version. :) Ok.
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
