Defining implication relation for classical logic

In classical logic, "P implies Q" is equivalent to "not-P or Q". It is well known that the equivalence is problematic. Actually, from "P implies Q", "not-P or Q" can be inferred ("Implication-to-disjunction" is valid), while from "not-P or Q", "P implies Q" cannot be inferred in general ("Disjunction-to-implication" is not valid), so the equivalence between them is invalid. This work aims to remove exactly the incorrect Disjunction-to-implication from classical logic (CL). The paper proposes a logical system (IRL), which has the properties (1) adding Disjunction-to-implication to IRL is simply CL, and (2) Disjunction-to-implication is independent of IRL, i.e. either Disjunction-to-implication or its negation cannot be derived in IRL. In other words, IRL is just the sub-system of CL with Disjunction-to-implication being exactly removed.