On 30 August 2011 10:05, Eliot Lear wrote:
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.
If there are compelling reasons to fix a BCP "somehow", as it was
the case when the Trust was created and the IPR issues were fixed,
it was obviously possible to create tons of new BCPs updating old
BCPs.
Maybe RFC 2119 has enough valid (= verified + 499) errata for an
update. OTOH many folks here agree that it should be kept "as is",
because folks here do not agree *how* to fix it, e.g., nobody
proposed to fix only the errata, and they also don't agree *what*,
if anything (excl. errata), is broken.
Maybe Peter can propose a completely new "mustard RFC" as a kind
of process experiment, where authors are free to use this new RFC
to define their mustard, or stick to "RFC 2119 cum errata".
It was never REQUIRED to use RFC 2119 terminology, when authors
don't like it and have other ideas. I recall how hard it was to
switch RFC 5321 from some "proprietary" terminology in RFC 2821 to
the common RFC 2119 terminology, when the author mumbled about the
consensus of some prehistoric WG, which apparently decided that it
is a "good" idea to *copy* RFC 2119 definitions instead of simply
reference RFC 2119. By popular demand RFC 5321 got this right.
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.
That's simple, I know how to find Brian's [PROCDOCS], and there I'd
find all inhabitants of this zoo...
Let's not repeat that fiasco with 2119.
...okay, I certainly don't insist on it. But as long as nobody
offers to fix only the errata in 2119bis anything more ambitious
should leave RFC 2119 alone, no "obsoleted by" and no "historic".
-Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf