At 09:29 AM 10/21/00 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
At 15.44 -0700 00-10-20, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
At 03:12 PM 10/20/00 -0700, Dan Kohn wrote:
This is the normal way standards progress through maturity, as otherwise
issuing any new RFC would require dozens or hundreds of other RFCs to be
simultaneously reissued.
It would be normal if the RFC 1766 was being replaced by a
standard track document. However, the proposal is to replace
RFC 1766 with a BCP. This implies that RFC 1766 and all standard
track documents with normative references to RFC 1766 will be
moved to Historic status.
No, it is perfectly ok for a document on standards track to reference a BCP,
and therefore a document which is Proposed to be replaced by a BCP.
Yes, I realize this (after all, 2119 is a BCP). I didn't voice
my concern or the issue well.
My concern here is that RFC 1766 provides a Standard Track Technical
Specification and the proposal replaces it with BCP. These
classifications are not equivalent. The real question is whether
the Language Tags are appropriate classified as a practice or
a Technical Specification. I believe the latter is more appropriate.
Kurt