Re: RFC 1959 to Historic? (revised)

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> 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

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