On 7/28/11 1:05 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Hello, > > The new version is obviously shorter, but it omits some points. With > eliminating of DS level, RFC 5657 makes no sense more. Wrong. The *title* needs to be adjusted, but mutatis mutandis the general advice is useful. > It should be > obsoleted and moved to Historic by your document, if IESG decides to > eliminate the requirement for interoperability documentation, which I am > opposed to (see my LC comments to -06). I see no reason to move RFC 5657 to Historic. > Another issue is STD numbers. Mentioning that they are still assigned > to ISs in Section 2.2 should be fine. The STD issue is orthogonal. > Also, Section 3.3: > >> (2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as >> a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard >> document as Proposed Standard. > > Won't such action be allowed after 2 years from approval? That's what the text says, no? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf