Bruce Lilly wrote:
There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it
postdates RFC 2026.
Interesting. Are there any others?
Maybe 4156 (wais) & 4157 (prospero). That's a bit special,
because it's a part of the effort to get rid of 1738.
I have heard that an effort to publish a particular obsolete
specification as Historic received strong pushback, with the
recommendation for publication as Informational.
If you have son-of-1036 in mind, "strong pushback" isn't how
I recall Henry's info - it was more like "lacking enthusiasm".
I can't check it at the moment.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf