Moin, > Is this the discussion in question? Not only. 1930 was also brought up in the discussion around personal ASNs some time ago, as well as in the discussion around 2024-01.
> 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. I sadly agree with the second part here. And disagree with the first. A plain change to historic would remove the document from the BCP iirc (as there is a status requirement for BCPs); The most atomic change might be a new document picking the specific items that need to be contextualized and adding that in, no? Or, alternatively, an informational document just as an FYI without directly touching the BCP? I have no real feeling what the best option would be, apart from 'anything that replaces 1930 in full will be an eternal mess to write). With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
