Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Does this document actually obsolete "STD1"? I'm not even sure what
that means... :-(
Good question. Guessing, it means that the status of STD 68 claims
that there is an STD 1, while STD 1 claims that there is no STD 66,
let alone any STD 68. Go figure... :-|
If 2821 is moved into the SMTP STD, does 821 have to be removed?
For STD 10, yes. I hope also for Brian's proposal, but I think we
need an example for this acronym business, using all existing STDs,
determined by some appropriate way (i.e. not limited to RFC 3700).
Not that I can think of a better adjective that starts with the
letter "D"... :-(
How about "distinguished standard", or is that too ridiculous ?
one question I've seen discussed repeatedly is whether it's bad for
a specification to move to "Historic" - this came up several times
in DECRUFT, for example. It would be nice to make a statement about
this in a revised 2026. I don't think it IS bad - "Historic" can be
as gentle as "no one who cares still participates in IETF" - but
whether others agree or not, the document should say something about
this.
Historic RFCs can be brilliant, but nevertheless they are historic.
IMO "historic" does not necessarily mean "no one cares". Actually
somebody cared enough to trigger the reclassification. And it does
not mean that the historic RFC "was always a bad idea". It might
have been a very good idea, later turning out to be not good enough
for today's needs, e.g., UTF-7 (not yet historic, but a candidate).
it will be good to decide whether obsolete is more perjorative than
Historic, or vice versa, and say so.
Tricky. As an example RFC 2821 claims to obsolete RFC 821, but IMO
a PS cannot obsolete a STD, it might grow into a position where it
replaces the old RFC as STD. Maybe 2821ter will finish off RFC 821.
In theory, because RFC 821 is really already "historic", this could
be made explicit. But then we'd have a STD 10 without SMTP for some
years until 2821ter (or another successor of RFC 2821, this could be
2821bis promoted to STD "as is" in 2011) is ready to take over.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf