<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Alexey,<div><br><div><div>On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:59 AM, LeaderTelecom B.V. <<a href="mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl">info@leadertelecom.nl</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">But for now it looks as deprecated and not updated.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>RFC 2050 was intended to document the then-current (1996) number registry policies. As mentioned in the IESG-inserted prologue, the IESG was going to reevaluate the "best current practice" status via the Internet Registry Evolution (IRE) working group (which never got beyond the BOF stage). By the time 2050 was published, it was already overtaken by events and I believe there was a consensus (at least within the RIR and maybe network operation communities) that further policy definition should be done within the RIR structures, not the IETF. </div><div><br></div><div>As such, I've always found folks treating 2050 as holy text somewhat amusing. I have suggested in a couple of places that 2050 should be moved to Historic, but there doesn't seem much appetite in the IETF to take that on. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div></div><br></div></body></html>