On 7/28/11 1:05 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
The new version is obviously shorter, but it omits some points. With
eliminating of DS level, RFC 5657 makes no sense more.
Wrong. The *title* needs to be adjusted, but mutatis mutandis the
general advice is useful.
It should be
obsoleted and moved to Historic by your document, if IESG decides to
eliminate the requirement for interoperability documentation, which I am
opposed to (see my LC comments to -06).
I see no reason to move RFC 5657 to Historic.
Another issue is STD numbers. Mentioning that they are still assigned
to ISs in Section 2.2 should be fine.
The STD issue is orthogonal.
Also, Section 3.3:
(2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed Standard.
Won't such action be allowed after 2 years from approval?
That's what the text says, no?
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf