Re: RFC 1959 to Historic?

[Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> 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.

>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.

> >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