I previously sent my comments to the IESG, but I was
asked to re-raise the issue on the IETF mailing list
because "... The IESG at this point
seems to want public guidance on a document by document
basis..." on the topic of how to move old documents
or protocols to Historic status. In this case, it is
the raft of URI schemes currently only documented in
RFC 1738.
So, to recap:
I think it is good to update the URI scheme documents
that are in widespread, current and growing use:
"ftp", "file", "telnet" to move these beyond their
"Proposed Standard" status, update the descriptions,
and bring the results along on standards track, by
insuring that the documents are consistent with
widespread interest.
I think it is a bad idea to issue new documents for
URI schemes merely to move those schemes to Historic
status, "wais", "prospero", and even "gopher". I include
"gopher" even though there may be active or even new
"gopher" client implementations, because I don't believe
the gopher protocol or the gopher URI scheme will ever
move to full standard.
Does anyone see any real need to issue a new
document on the "gopher" URI scheme merely
to declare it "Historic"?
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf