On 30 August 2011 11:14, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
I would rather object to making RFC 2119 Historic; I remember RFC
2026 discusses such case (probably Section 6.3, which is also
applicable to BCPs). So, the following change is necessary:
Abstract and Introduction (similar text). OLD: "If approved, this
document obsoletes RFC 2119 and changes its status to Historic.";
NEW: "This document obsoletes RFC 2119."
That's better, but otherwise still near to "second worst proposal".
RFC 2026 section 5.1 does not mention 6.3 (revising), it mentions
6.4 (retiring). If Peter creates a new RFC (independent of 2119),
and it turns out that everybody prefers the new RFC, then the old
RFC 2119 should be retired.
But as noted by Eliot, of course I have no idea if this part of
RFC 2026 happens to be one of the few things that are still valid,
I only know where I'd find the updates if I'd need to find them.
This 2119 rathole is a major distraction from various Last Calls,
hopefully the IESG has good filters to find Last Call comments on
this list.
-Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf