06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
I think that the author of RFC2026 was wrong while writing the
definition of Historic status. This document says that Historic should
be assigned only to that documents that were standards and now are
obsolete. But why do we need such narrow definition? Non-standards RFCs
are not made Historic while obsoleting, according to 2026. Moreover,
such status will just duplicate the obsoleted-by one. When there will be
the attempt to revise RFC 2026, we should put there that Historic status
is to be assigned to that documents that are considered to be
/deprecated/. I fully share the opinion of Doug here.
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not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it, regardless of its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.
As for NETBLT, I am strongly against moving it to Historic, rather than
specifying by Standards Track Document. There has been one attempt to do
that by John White in 1995 (see draft-white-protocol-stack), but IMO
(that likes strange, but...) we can align this document with the most
current needs of Internet and publish.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list