Re: RFC 1959 to Historic?

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

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):
>> 
>> 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 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?
>> 
>> Kurt