Subject: RE: Last Call: Tags for the Identification of Languages to BCP

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:44:23 -0700

At 03:12 PM 10/20/00 -0700, Dan Kohn wrote:
>This is the normal way standards progress through maturity, as otherwise
>issuing any new RFC would require dozens or hundreds of other RFCs to be
>simultaneously reissued.

It would be normal if the RFC 1766 was being replaced by a
standard track document.  However, the proposal is to replace
RFC 1766 with a BCP.  This implies that RFC 1766 and all standard
track documents with normative references to RFC 1766 will be
moved to Historic status.

Kurt

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:29:00 +0200

>moved to Historic status.

No, it is perfectly ok for a document on standards track to reference 
a BCP, and therefore a document which is Proposed to be replaced by a 
BCP. The thing that can not happen is having a standards track 
document having normative references to a different document on a 
lower level on standards track, or to informational, experimental or 
historic.

From RFC 2026:

>    An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
>    than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
>    For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
>    at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
>    the Standard level.

>    Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
>    one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
>    "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
>    are not Internet Standards in any sense.

    Patrik Fältström
    Area Director, Applications Area

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:59:53 -0700

At 09:29 AM 10/21/00 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>No, it is perfectly ok for a document on standards track to reference a BCP, and therefore a document which is Proposed to be replaced by a BCP.

Yes, I realize this (after all, 2119 is a BCP).  I didn't voice
my concern or the issue well.

My concern here is that RFC 1766 provides a Standard Track Technical
Specification and the proposal replaces it with BCP.  These
classifications are not equivalent.  The real question is whether
the Language Tags are appropriate classified as a practice or
a Technical Specification.  I believe the latter is more appropriate.

Kurt