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.
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.
amusingly, it is held up as sacred text when it suits, and described as ancient history when it does not suit. but the admin infrastructure seems to have majored in hypocrisy, so no shock there. we were both there in danvers, as were others. it was a meeting of the ops and the then-existent rirs to reach some agreements, especially on allocation size and satanic phyltres (the /19 compromise). in normal ops behavior, once the immediate deal was done, we all went back to work and forgot about it. the rirs used it to embed self-perpetuating monopolies. today's problem is that reaching a new agreement would mean slicing through massive rhetoric, bs, deeply embedded financial positions in rental of integers, vigilante culture, ... that it is essentially hopeless. otoh, i must compliment the ripe community for trying to address the issues of legacy, pi, ... space, and re-form the internet community. maybe there is hope. randy