--On Thursday, 16 December, 2004 22:07 +0200 Pekka Savola
<pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> James M. Polk wrote:
>>
>>> I'm initially really surprised 1518/1519 is on this list.
>>
>> Obviously, it's a bug. Of the Proposed Standards that the
>> Internet runs on, those are among the most important. I
>> believe this was pointed out on the old-standards list
>> already, but it must have got lost.
>
> Not really a bug. Note that the to-be-historic list does not
> mention this:
>
> RFC1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation
> of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
>
> This is the best document to use as a basis for respinning the
> concept of CIDR, AFAICS. 1518/1519 are full of address
> assignment etc. details which were out of date or
> inappropriate for a standards track document already 5 years
> ago. There's very small amount of useful information to
> salvage from those.
Pekka and others,
I suggest that the RFC Editor's traditional rule about normative
references from standards track documents to things of a lower
maturity level should apply here as well, even going backwards.
If you think there is value in RFC 1517, and it makes normative
reference to 1518 and 1519 (which it does-- I just checked),
then 1518 and 1519 are live documents. If one reclassifies them
to historic, one risks really confusing users/readers and doing
a world of harm.
If you think it is worth keeping the content of 1517 while
removing 1518 and 1519 from the standards track, then I think
you need to arrange to replace ("obsolete") 1517 with a new
document that stands alone, without those normative references.
Such a document could, of course, obsolete all three of
1517-1519, which would eliminate the need for any processing in
the "cruft" arrangements.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf