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

This is what we (IESG) normally require for moving a doc to
Historic. I will bring this up in IESG and get back to you.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: zondag 17 november 2002 19:07
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); John Flick (E-mail)
> Cc: Hubmib Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] 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
> 
> > 
>