--On 28. august 2005 01:22 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
The reasons for moving RFC 1032 from status UNKNOWN to status HISTORIC
are light. Such a move would have a negative impact on active usage as
RFC 3912 does not document the contact point for problems concerning a
domain.
Three thousand RFCs ago, RFCs were used for many things.
I recommend readeing some other "status UNKNOWN" perspectives, such as RFC
1003 ("Issues in defining an equations representation standard") or RFC
1019 ("Report of the Workshop on Environments for Computational
Mathematics").
This particular RFC was (I think; people around at the time will correct
me) brought out by SRI-NIC to make it easy for the early Internet users to
get hold of its instructions; the IETF never had an opinion on it.
The IETF *is not in the business of* "document the contact point for
problems concerning a domain". That duty is left to registry operators, who
have a whole apparatus (ICANN) for making it possible to figure out how to
do that. And they can ask to have such specs published as RFCs if they want
to - it's been done before; examples include RFC 1875 ("UNINETT PCA Policy
Statements"). But ICANN hasn't done that, so no policy related to any
*current* domain administrator is on the record.
The only possible reason I can see for doing anything to the status of RFC
1032 is becaue the existence of the RFC is (wrongly) abused to try to force
people into changing their behaviour with the argument "The IETF says so".
Those people should stop taking the name of the IETF in vain.
Status UNKNOWN seems like a fine status to keep, in my opinion. Status
INFORMATIONAL would have been more likely if anyone had bothered to
reclassify the status UNKNOWN documents back in 1989 or therabouts, when
those stop appearing. But like today, the people managing the publication
series seem to have found better use for their time back then.
Harald
pgpS43ww9uQyf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf