idnits 2.17.1 draft-meyer-rfc1269-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 Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 17 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 3 instances of lines with control characters in the document. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC1269]), 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1269 (Obsoleted by RFC 4273) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1654 (Obsoleted by RFC 1771) Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT David Meyer 2 draft-meyer-rfc1269-historic-00.txt 3 2003.07.28 5 Request to Move RFC1269 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 RFC1269 [RFC1269], "Definitions of Managed Objects for the 31 Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3)" describes a technology 32 which is no longer commonly used. This document requests that 33 RFC 1269 be moved to historic status. 35 1. Details 37 During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became 38 apparent that the BGP-3 MIB, as described in RFC1269, is not 39 common usage (if at all). Since this protocol has not been in 40 use in the public internet for many years (it is obsoleted by 41 BGP-4 [RFC1654]), it is proposed to reclassify it to historic. 43 INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1269 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 45 2. Security Considerations 47 Moving RFC1269 to historic has no known effect on the security of the 48 internet. 50 3. References 52 [RFC1269] S. Willis and J. Burruss, "Definitions of 53 Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol 54 (Version 3)", October, 1991. 56 [RFC1654] Y. Rekhter and T. Li (Editors) "A Border Gateway 57 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", October, 1994. 59 4. Authors' Addresses 61 David Meyer 62 Email: dmm@maoz.com 64 5. Full Copyright Statement 66 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 68 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, 69 and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in 70 its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in 71 whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above 72 copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and 73 derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any 74 way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet 75 Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 76 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 77 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required 78 to translate it into languages other than English. 80 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked 81 by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 83 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" 84 basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 85 DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 86 ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY 88 INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1269 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 90 RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A 91 PARTICULAR PURPOSE.