> Note: The security considerations make an informative reference
to RFC 2535. Since this is an informative reference, it might
be useful either to point to the current drafts or add a phrase
like "or its successors, such as [X]" just to avoid a lone pointer
to something being replaced. This isn't a big deal, though, and
from my view it could be skipped or done in Auth 48 with no problem.
I looked at crafting an rfc-ed note along those lines but it is
a bit messy; should it only assume successor for DNSSEC and not for TSIG
for instance?
So I'm inclined to drop this.
In general the fact that documents get updated or obsoleted is handled through
the rfc-index.
Erik