idnits 2.17.1 draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 3 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 0. Abstract' ) ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 2. Security Considerations' ) ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** There are 23 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 8 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 3 instances of lines with control characters in the document. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC1266], [RFC1771]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1266' on line 52 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1771' on line 55 looks like a reference Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT David Meyer 2 draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Keyur Patel 3 2003.07.28 5 Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status 7 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 9 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 10 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 12 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 13 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 14 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 15 Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 22 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 25 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 28 0. Abstract 30 RFC1266 [RFC1266], "Experience with the BGP Protocol" documents how 31 the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have 32 been satisfied by a BGP-3, a technology which is no longer commonly 33 used. This document requests that RFC 1266 be moved to historic status. 35 1. Details 37 During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became 38 apparent that the Experience with BGP-3 Protocol, as described in 39 RFC1266, is not common usage (if at all). Since this protocol has not 40 been in use in the public internet for many years (it is obsoleted by 41 BGP-4 [RFC1771]), it is proposed to reclassify it to historic. 43 INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 45 2. Security Considerations 47 Moving RFC1266 to historic has no known effect on the security of the 48 internet. 50 3. References 52 [RFC1266] Y. Rekhter (Editor) "Experience with the BGP 53 Protocol", October, 1991. 55 [RFC1771] Y. Rekhter and T. Li (Editors) "A Border Gateway 56 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", October, 1994. 58 4. Authors' Addresses 60 David Meyer 61 Email: dmm@maoz.com 63 Keyur Patel 64 Email: keyupate@cisco.com 66 5. Full Copyright Statement 68 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 70 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, 71 and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in 72 its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in 73 whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above 74 copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and 75 derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any 76 way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet 77 Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 78 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 79 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required 80 to translate it into languages other than English. 82 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked 83 by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 85 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" 86 basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 87 DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 88 ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY 90 INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 92 RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A 93 PARTICULAR PURPOSE.