Alfred,
IMO, listing RFC 4701 as a Normative Reference and even in the metadata as being "Updated" is a bit of overstressing.
Perhaps. I struggled with the question of what to do for these cases. But for the record, here's the rationale that I used. I wanted to make sure that whoever used protocol X would easily find what the IANA rules are for that protocol. The updates relationship helps at least me in searching such things.
Also, if we had a standalone protocol RFC that had originally been published without IANA rules, when a new RFC defines these rules I would probably use the update relationship to note this.
However, I do not want to claim that this is the only possible way of doing it -- simply noting that the protocols are affected and listing the references in the informative references section would also be fine. I also note that IETF's practices for IANA guideline documents have been varied: some have become PS RFCs, some BCPs, sometimes there is an Update and sometimes there isn't.
There are also differences between the RFCs that my draft updates. For instance, the RFC 4701 speaks about values defined by DHCP and refers to RFC 2131, so you could argue that the necessary reference is already in place. RFC 2131 on the other hand does not even refer to RFC 826 and speaks only of the "ARP section in the Assigned Numbers RFC".
..., and DNS Resource Records [RFC4701].
by:
..., and the DNS DHCID Resource Record [RFC4701].
Noted. Jari -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>