[Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired

[Eliot Lear]

FWIW, Vince Fuller has shown interest in providing an update.

Eliot

Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> I suggest that the RFC Editor's traditional rule about normative
>> references from standards track documents to things of a lower
>> maturity level should apply here as well, even going backwards.
>> If you think there is value in RFC 1517, and it makes normative
>> reference to 1518 and 1519 (which it does-- I just checked),
>> then 1518 and 1519 are live documents.  If one reclassifies them
>> to historic, one risks really confusing users/readers and doing
>> a world of harm.
>>
>> If you think it is worth keeping the content of 1517 while
>> removing 1518 and 1519 from the standards track, then I think
>> you need to arrange to replace ("obsolete") 1517 with a new
>> document that stands alone, without those normative references.
>> Such a document could, of course, obsolete all three of
>> 1517-1519, which would eliminate the need for any processing in
>> the "cruft" arrangements.
> 
> 
> Correct, though 1517 only has a single References section, giving the 
> RFC-editor/IESG some leeway which ones to consider normative.
> 
> If that is what it takes, a 5 page document -- based on RFC1517 -- could 
> be easily written which would convey the CIDR principles without having 
> to normatively reference the other documents.
> 
> I think I agree with you that we cannot just recycle 1517 (or any other 
> CIDR document) to DS, it'll require some polishing.
>