Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs dot ucla dot edu> wrote:
PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic,
not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it, regardless of its
currency or relevance.
I remember a few months ago, it was proposed (evidently not for the
first time) to move FTP to Historic, on the basis of its lack of
airtight 21st-century security features, with no consideration for the
innumerable existing systems and processes that have no need for
top-notch security, and rely daily on FTP.
I often see comments on this list about whether the "outside world"
views the IETF as irrelevant. Declaring a commonly used, core process
or protocol as Historic because something better exists might be a
perfect example of this.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
Ietf mailing list