*> >>
*> > 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.
*>
Harald,
I am puzzled by your comment. I believe that Bill Simpson is correct
about the "old" (historic) definition of Historic category, defined by
Jon Postel. Jon believed that if you have a standard defining
interoperability, it is ALWAYS a standard unless there is a compelling
reason to warn people away. The IETF can change the meaning of
Historic, but let's not change history.
Bob Braden
*> 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
*>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf