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

"C. M. Heard" wrote:
> 
> 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.

This text may have been an overreaction.  1515 should have been
obsoleted by 2239, but that somehow got lost in the process.  I
think we were trying to make it very explicit in the text of the
document so we didn't lose it this time.

John