Harald Tveit Alvestrand 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do some work in any case if the reference was outdated).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.
Good. For clarity, as I did the above response from decade old memory,
that would be:
* A TS that is considered to be inappropriate for general use is
labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because of its limited
functionality, specialized nature, or historic status. [RFC-2026 p 11]
* has been superceded by a more recent specification [RFC-2026 p 16]
* or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete [RFC-2026 p 16]
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.
We must be in agreement, although for some odd reason I thought you
were disagreeing with me. That "no" confused me. ;-)
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf