On 29 August 2011 23:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for
long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to
obsolete RFC 2119.
There are literally thousands of documents (not only RFCs, also W3C
standards, etc.) with normative references to RFC 2119 (sic!) instead
of BCP 14, and I see no compelling reason to render these references
as "historic".
For starters simply confirm the erratum, I don't see why that caused
you headaches.
IMO it is not necessary (but allowed) to import any BCP 14 terms not
actually used in a document, i.e., I disagree with section 4 in your
draft.
How about trying an "updates 2119" and status BCP, where BCP 14 then
consists of 2119 and 2119bis, and old RFC 2119 references are still
okay "as is".
Readers with difficulties to figure out what RFC 2119 meant might
find the confirmed erratum and the "updated by 2119bis" with better
answers. Authors could use RFC 2119, 2119bis, or even BCP 14 in
the references of new documents, where "BCP 14" would be new, IIRC
RFC 2119 did not permit this -- fearing precisely what is happening
now, somebody trying to update critical terms. I think that your
new definitions match precisely what RFC 2119 wanted, but I'm also
almost sure that some old "2119 clients" will disagree.
-Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf