That's probably because RFC 2549 was the transitional document.
Richard Bennett
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Fall <kfall(_at_)cs(_dot_)berkeley(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at Sep 83:12 PMPDT, Richard Bennett wrote:
It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture models are
published as Informational when they're clearly not in the same level of
authority as most Informational RFCs. An architecture document is meant to
guide future work on standards track RFCs, and has been regarded
historically as more or less binding.
The easy fix is to create an "Architectural" category within the standards
track. There's obviously a big difference between RFC 2475 and IP for Avian
Carriers.
But not so obvious between 'IP for Avian Carriers' and RFC4838... :)
- K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf