[rfc-i] streams in rfc-index

[sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)]

re: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html

a number of RFCs are labeled as (Stream: Legacy) that were last called and approved by the IESG
so it would seem that they should actually be (Stream: IETF)   

I found this for RFC 2119 which was an individual document that was last called and approved by the IESG

	To: IETF-Announce: ;
	Sender:ietf-announce-request at ietf.org
	From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
	Subject: Last Call: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         	Levels to BCP
	Reply-to: iesg at ietf.org
	Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:10:20 -0500
	X-Orig-Sender: scoya at ietf.org
	Message-ID:  <9612231010.aa22074 at ietf.org>


 	The IESG has received a request to consider Key words for use in RFCs
	 to Indicate Requirement Levels <draft-bradner-key-words-02.txt> as a
 	BCP.  This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
 	IETF Working Group.

 	The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
 	final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
 	iesg at ietf.org or ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by January 23, 1997.

and

	To: IETF-Announce: ;
	Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor at isi.edu>
	Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab at isi.edu>
	Sender:ietf-announce-request at ietf.org
	From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
	Subject: Document Action: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	         Levels to BCP
	Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:57:56 -0500
	X-Orig-Sender: scoya at ietf.org
	Message-ID:  <9701291357.aa25948 at ietf.org>

 	 The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "Key words for use in RFCs
	  to Indicate Requirement Levels" <draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt> for
  	publication as a Best Current Practices RFC. This document is not the
  	product of an IETF working group. The IESG contact person is Fred
 	Baker.

use of the term Legacy in this sort of case does not seem quite right - that term seems best to be used for 
pre-IETF documents as well as documents that were not last called & approved by the IESG

there is the question of what Area to use for this type of document that the IESG approved but was not the
product of a working group (there are quite a few documents that fall into this category) - maybe (Stream: IETF, Area: Independent)

I can do a pass to try to find these cases if the confusion is that chasing the label away from Legacy is what is wanted

Scott