ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

2011-01-07 00:31:24
I have also seen attempts to make a standard Historic with the
supposed reason being to "clear things out" for the introduction of
some better replacement. That seems like just nonsense to me. If it is
so obvious that a replacement is superior, the replacement document
can do the move of earlier document to Historic...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com



On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Doug Ewell <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org> wrote:
Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs dot ucla dot edu> wrote:

PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply?  the ideas 
obsolete?

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not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it, regardless of its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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf