I object to making RFC 2050 historic without retaining at least the content of its Section 1 as an IETF BCP. While the IETF did formally hand over details of address allocation policy to IANA, we did so knowing that the RIRs themselves, and IANA, considered themselves bound by RFC 2050 (see the list of authors of that document). An update of RFC 2050, within the scope set by the IETF-IANA MoU, would be reasonable. Abrogation is not reasonable. Regards Brian Carpenter (speaking only for myself) On 12/01/2013 08:51, internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Reclassifying Internet Registry Allocation Guidelines to Historic > Author(s) : S. Moonesamy > Filename : draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2013-01-12 > > Abstract: > RFC 2050 describes the registry system for the distribution of globally > unique Internet address space and registry operations. It also > discusses about policy issues which are outside the scope of the IETF. > This document reclassifies RFC 2050 as Historic. It also reclassifies > RFC 1366 and RFC 1466 as Historic. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >