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

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> OK, what I got back when talking to IESG (Specifically 
> Scott, since he is our process guru) is that in fact
> Obsoleted and Historic are equivalent.
> 
> When a document obsoletes and earlier one, then that is 
> effectively the same as making old one historic. The doc
> normally just keeps the tag obsoleted.
> 
> When an old doc needs to be obsoleted, but we have no new 
> document that actually replaces (obsoletes) such a doc, 
> then we typically write a informational RFC in which we 
> document and recommend why to make the old document historic.
> 
> So it seems that we do not need to make 2668 and such Historic.
> What would be our motivation to do so?

I think this was a carry-over from previous versions of the
MAU-MIB.  It's clearly not needed, since the document already
states that it obsoletes 2668 and 1515, and I would suggest
that the proper resolution is to remove the "will go to
Historic status" language.  It has not been present in any
other RFC I've seen that obsoletes an existing RFC.

Mike