Subject: RFC 1959 to Historic?

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:28:31 -0800

In a review of old LDAP RFCs, I noted that "An LDAP URL Format"
(RFC1959) and "The LDAP URL Format" are both currently listed
as Proposed Standards.   As there should not be two specifications
of the "ldap" URL scheme and clearly RFC2256 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?

Kurt

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:58:57 -0500

No, the LDAP URL "feature" is still a proposed standard. How it's
expressed is via 2255 (not 2256). The two RFCs are already linked in the
index by the "Obsoleted by" and "Obsoletes" cross-references. That's
sufficient.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:20:01 -0800

At 11:58 AM 2/8/01 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
>How it's expressed is via 2255 (not 2256).

That's was a typo.  I meant that RFC2255 clearly superceeds RFC1959
but fails.

>No, the LDAP URL "feature" is still a proposed standard.

Both RFC2555 and RFC 1959 are currently proposed standard.
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html
My suggestion is to move RFC 1959 to historic.

> The two RFCs are already linked in the
>index by the "Obsoleted by" and "Obsoletes" cross-references.

No, they are not.

>That's sufficient.

That would sufficient cause RFC 1959 to be obsolete and hence
historic.  But that's not the current status.

>"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote (typo corrected):
>> 
>> of the "ldap" URL scheme and clearly RFC2255 supercedes RFC1959,

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:48:17 -0500

> >index by the "Obsoleted by" and "Obsoletes" cross-references.

From the current RFC index (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt):

1959 An LDAP URL Format. T. Howes & M. Smith. June 1996. (Format:
     TXT=7243 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC2255) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

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

I repeat: that's sufficient.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:41:06 -0800

>I repeat: that's sufficient.

I believe the Status should be HISTORIC not PROPOSED STANDARD
per RFC 2026, 4.2.4.

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.

I don't see how an "obsolete" specification can have any status
other than Historic.

Kurt