RE: AD review of draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-mib-v3-02.txt

> 
> - Sect 3.1 claims/states that rfc2668 will go to historic.
>   Well, you can recommend that in this document, but the WG cannot
>   just declare it. Maybe it is best to write a small doc that
>   recommends this action, similar to the way it was done for
>     draft-ietf-hubmib-1643-to-historic-01.txt
>   And maybe at the same time you can ask to make 2239 Historic
>   (instead of claiming so in sect 3.2) And are you also trying
>   to get 1515 to historic per sect 3.3?

Cannot we avoid the need to issue two Internet-Drafts each time when we release a document that obsoletes a previous RFC to the point of making it Historical? Something like a clause like 'Impact on other Standard Tracks Documents' in the Internet-Draft?  The IESG could debate both actions by the time they approve the new RFC.

Dan

>