That's probably because RFC 2549 was the transitional document.
Richard Bennett On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Fall <kf...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2010, at Sep 83:12 PMPDT, Richard Bennett wrote: > >> It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture models are >> published as Informational when they're clearly not in the same level of >> authority as most Informational RFCs. An architecture document is meant to >> guide future work on standards track RFCs, and has been regarded >> historically as more or less binding. >> >> The easy fix is to create an "Architectural" category within the standards >> track. There's obviously a big difference between RFC 2475 and IP for Avian >> Carriers. >> > > But not so obvious between 'IP for Avian Carriers' and RFC4838... :) > > - K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
