--On 17. desember 2004 10:21 -0500 William Allen Simpson
<wsimpson(_at_)greendragon(_dot_)com> wrote:
Marking the document historic does not take it "away" from deployment
-- marking document as historic doesn't hurt at all (except
procedurally, when used as a normative reference, but then we have to
do some work in any case if the reference was outdated).
This must be some new redefinition of the meaning of a Historic RFC.
In the past, it meant "don't do it this way anymore, we no longer
recommend it, there's another way to accomplish the same goal".
So, for the PPP items listed, what's the better way to accomplish the
same goal?
No, it's the old definition of Historic.
The definition "Historic = Bad" is a change that has been encouraged by the
practice of not routinely making documents Historic.
This is, to my mind, no more sensible than the twisting of "Experimental =
Kiss of Death" that was the vogue some years ago, which we seem to have
successfully untwisted.
I think it makes sense for Historic to mean what RFC 2026 said it was.
And if it does not, we should explicitly decide to say otherwise.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf