IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BCP97bis

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Sat, 16 October 2021 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745B93A135D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 03:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbuzVoDwrERi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 03:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1BA3A1357 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 03:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF968BCEFD2; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwY69dHZZwkWHXDuHMQtiYe8QCqQNnP2a9CFsDNfp-CWSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:45:53 -0400
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B0DE6BFD-2D9E-4969-85B9-C533F6DBD5A2@sobco.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.com> <A0343309-3371-405C-A039-161D8787966B@sobco.com> <CAL0qLwY69dHZZwkWHXDuHMQtiYe8QCqQNnP2a9CFsDNfp-CWSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/abyunpA6o3IL7FcD82G-V-9b9gw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:46:01 -0000

RFC 1818 is Historic - 

1818 Best Current Practices. J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter. August 1995.
     (Format: TXT, HTML) (Status: HISTORIC) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1818)

and thus should not be a normative reference

Scott

> On Oct 16, 2021, at 12:47 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> RFC 1818 is not a good reference for BCPs - RFC 2026 is the better one
> 
> That reference is preserved from RFC 3967.  Also, RFC 1818 is not obsolete, so presumably what it says is still valid.
> 
> Should that spot refer to both 2026 and 1818, perhaps?
> 
> -MSK

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status