Julian Reschke wrote:
...
I had occasion to coordinate the transfer of responsibility from the
IETF to IEEE for some work, and had to spend significant effort
working through the copyright issues and the migration issues
(RFC4663). The work being transferred in RFC4663 is an IETF standard,
whereas RFC2731 is only Informational, so that could make a lot of
difference, but there is simply no discussion at all of copyright
issues and migration issues. And the reasons why RFC2731 is not still
considered valid (just an earlier version), or why this step to
declare the RFC Historic is being done are extremely light. Is it to
prevent it being used because this old version and the updated work
cannot coexist? or do we just not like this one any more?
Well, it's not up-to-date anymore. Don't use it. Look elsewhere.
If this means that moving it to "Historic" is the wrong thing, I'll be
happy to remove that part.
...
In the meantime, I asked the IESG for advice on this. Their feedback was
that "historic" is inaccurate here, as the specified format still is in
use, and still recommended to be used.
Thus, I have removed the parts of reclassifying as "historic" in
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-04.txt>.
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf