[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

2011-01-06 15:45:53
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not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it, regardless of its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 |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

Ietf mailing list