Hi,
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, John C Klensin wrote: [...]
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.
Correct, though 1517 only has a single References section, giving the RFC-editor/IESG some leeway which ones to consider normative.
If that is what it takes, a 5 page document -- based on RFC1517 -- could be easily written which would convey the CIDR principles without having to normatively reference the other documents.
I think I agree with you that we cannot just recycle 1517 (or any other CIDR document) to DS, it'll require some polishing.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf