On Apr 1, 2025, at 1:17 AM, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Moin, > >> RFC 1930 is documentation of historical consensus, and it contributes >> to policy in 2025 rather than specifying it. The kind of policy I >> mean is more commonly developed in other organisations and >> communities today than the IETF. >> >> It's not clear to me how grow spending time on this would be useful, >> given that context. Changing the status of 1930 or replacing it with >> another document (or both) unilaterally seems far more likely to >> cause headaches than clarity. > > Well, the core reason would be that i am currently participating in a > discussion in an RIR's address policy WG where some see BCP6 more like > a BCP and less like a documentation of historic consensus. >
Is this the discussion in question? https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/UXTZSHKNCRFN46XUKVJVDL2PYE7KU2WG/ > So, in essence: > - I agree with your point w.r.t. "RFC 1930 is documentation of > historical consensus" > - I somewhat think that it could be useful to make that explicit Perhaps changing the status of 1930 to Historic would suffice for now. I agree with the comments about the distinction between AS definition and AS policy; those could be included as part of the reason for the status change. There are other practices in 1930 that have been updated. Unfortunately, producing a new RFC (even if it is an update) can be long and complex. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
