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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf