Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Historically, "documenting for reference" produces an Informational status,
rather than Historic.
Yes, and the idea was to make a stronger statement than "for reference".
iirc, we considered briefly approving it for Informational and then
immediately reclassifying it as Historic. But that seemed silly.
If the IETF wanted to "make a statement" why not merely add text that makes the
desired statement?
Again, this has been the usual approach. Why change from that?
Going to Informational and then Historic would, indeed, be silly. It confuses
the semantics of Informational, since it implies that Informational has some
sort of standards status.
The model that has the IETF focus heavily on matters of "precedence",
particularly with respect to specifications that are not standards track, seems
questionable, at best. It means that rather than relying on questions of
technical efficacy, scaling, and the like, the IESG is instead worrying about
future, hypothetical, unstated human abuses.
At the least:
concern that the format not become a precedent
for future media types
should produce explicit text added to the document, so that readers can
understand whatever problems there are with this approach.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf