On 29 August 2011 23:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for > long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to > obsolete RFC 2119. There are literally thousands of documents (not only RFCs, also W3C standards, etc.) with normative references to RFC 2119 (sic!) instead of BCP 14, and I see no compelling reason to render these references as "historic". For starters simply confirm the erratum, I don't see why that caused you headaches. IMO it is not necessary (but allowed) to import any BCP 14 terms not actually used in a document, i.e., I disagree with section 4 in your draft. How about trying an "updates 2119" and status BCP, where BCP 14 then consists of 2119 and 2119bis, and old RFC 2119 references are still okay "as is". Readers with difficulties to figure out what RFC 2119 meant might find the confirmed erratum and the "updated by 2119bis" with better answers. Authors could use RFC 2119, 2119bis, or even BCP 14 in the references of new documents, where "BCP 14" would be new, IIRC RFC 2119 did not permit this -- fearing precisely what is happening now, somebody trying to update critical terms. I think that your new definitions match precisely what RFC 2119 wanted, but I'm also almost sure that some old "2119 clients" will disagree. -Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf