Frank,
On 8/30/11 12:15 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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".
On the basis of this logic we wouldn't be able to supercede any of our
key RFCs.
[...]
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".
What ends up happening, then, is that we need Internet lawyers to
traipse through references. I challenge you or anyone else here to list
all the process RFCs that update RFC 2026. Let's not repeat that fiasco
with 2119.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf