Subject: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:22:31 -0800

My previous post had an unfortunate typo.  This corrects the typo
and provides references.

In a review of old LDAP RFCs, I noted that "An LDAP URL Format"
(RFC1959) and "The LDAP URL Format" (RFC2255) are both currently listed
as Proposed Standards.   As there should not be two specifications
of the "ldap" URL scheme and clearly RFC2255 supercedes RFC1959,
I believe it appropriate to recommend to the IESG that RFC1959 be
moved to historic status.  Is there any reason why such a
recommendation should not be made?

 http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html
 ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1959.txt
 ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2255.txt

Kurt

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark C Smith)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:52:14 -0500

>  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2255.txt

Well, I think the correct action would have been for 2255 to obsolete
1959 (I am not sure why that was not done when 2255 was published, and
it probably can't be done now).

A similar question can be raised for 1960 ("A String Representation of
LDAP Search Filters") and 2254 ("The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters").

Perhaps the view was that the older RFCs are LDAPv2 specs. (e.g., RFC
2251 does not obsolete RFC 1777 either).

It is clearly confusing to have active, standards track RFCs that the
community views as "obsolete" or "historic."

-Mark Smith
 Netscape

---

From: Mark Wahl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:01:12 -0800

> recommendation should not be made?

I do not think this is necessary at this time.

RFC 2026 section 6.3:

"Once the new version has reached the Standard level, it will usually replace
the previous version, which will be moved to Historic status."

Many other application layer specifications have not been moved to historic.
For example,

RFC 1341, MIME, is a Proposed Standard, obsoleted by 1521.
RFC 1521, MIME, is a Proposed Standard, obsoleted by 2045-2049.
RFC 2045, MIME, is a Draft Standard.

And

RFC 1131 (OSPF) is a Proposed Standard that is obsoleted.
RFC 1134 (PPP) is a Proposed Standard that is obsoleted.
RFC 1144 (MIB II) is a Proposed Standard that is obsoleted.

Mark Wahl
Sun Microsystems Inc.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:02:47 -0800

>it probably can't be done now).

RFCs cannot be altered after publication with a few exceptions.
One of those is the addition of Obsoleted By: in the header.

>LDAP Search Filters") and 2254 ("The String Representation of LDAP

Yes.  I posted a suggestion regarding to this separately as any
recommendation made would be separate.

>2251 does not obsolete RFC 1777 either).

But RFC 1777 was a Draft Standard.   I think someone thought,
incorrectly, that RFC 1959 and RFC 1960 were Draft Standards.

>community views as "obsolete" or "historic."

I concur.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:09:43 +0100

>I do not think this is necessary at this time.

Correct.

 From the RFC-Index:

>2255 The LDAP URL Format. T. Howes, M. Smith. December 1997. (Format:
>      TXT=20685 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1959) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

One should though have had a header line in 2255 which says 
"obsoletes: 1959". Today, it says "replaces 1959" in the abstract.

     paf

-- 
Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:50:05 -0800

At 07:09 PM 2/8/01 +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> One should though have had a header line in 2255 which says "obsoletes:
> 1959". Today, it says "replaces 1959" in the abstract.

I'm more concerned that
  RFC 1959 doesn't have a header "Obsoleted by: RFC 2255"
and
  RFC 1960 doesn't have a header "Obsoleted by: RFC 2254".

Can these changes be made?

Kurt

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:06:27 +0100

>Can these changes be made?

No, RFC's are never changed after publication.

The RFC-Index is what one should look in to get to know the status of 
a document.

    paf

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:09:38 -0800

>Can these changes be made?

Obviously not.  Guess one just has to live with a bit of
confusion caused by having both listed on http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html.

Kurt

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:30:09 -0800 (PST)

> Obviously not.  Guess one just has to live with a bit of confusion
> caused by having both listed on
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html.

It would seem reasonable to ask the RFC Editor to have this page be
redefined as "Proposed but not Obsoleted", which I imagine is the intent.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:56:30 -0800

>redefined as "Proposed but not Obsoleted", which I imagine is the intent.

Or to at least indicate by each obsolete RFC that it is in
fact obsolete.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:24:31 +0100

>Or to at least indicate by each obsolete RFC that it is in

I get your point, and will let the RFC-Editor know, BUT, please read 
what I write. I think this is the third time I try to make my point:

The authoritative source for this kind of information is the RFC-Index.

     paf