Frank, On 8/30/11 12:15 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > 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". On the basis of this logic we wouldn't be able to supercede any of our key RFCs. > [...] > 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". What ends up happening, then, is that we need Internet lawyers to traipse through references. I challenge you or anyone else here to list all the process RFCs that update RFC 2026. Let's not repeat that fiasco with 2119. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf