08.01.2011 7:26, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification, not the
status of a service that might use it.
But the specification without service is nothing. We should look at the
service using it, first of all.
We say 'experimental' to mean that we thinks it's ok to play around
with the spec and maybe that we are hoping to get further information
about it. But it also means that we very much caution about use.
It's our "caveat emptor" label.
We say 'historic' when we frankly think the spec should now not be
used, for whatever reason and no matter its prior status.
These both are affirmative labels. I too do not think we should use
them for "housekeeping" and the mere fact that a specification is not
used does not mean that it shouldn't be used.
To the extent that having a spec around -- especially one on standards
track -- might seem to conflict with another, preferred spec, then
it's worth considering making the one that is out of favor become
historic. The same holds for specifications that are now deemed
problematic.
But it is the same what is with IRTP. RFC938 is obviously not acceptable
to be used in the current Internet. In order it remains useful, it's
needed to be rewritten or moved to Historic. And I really do not
understand how did it become Experimental. The first notices of current
classification system appeared in RFC1370, while this spec is RFC938.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
But none of this is about propriety or neatness or a community OCD
neurosis. It needs to be about pragmatic guidance to the community.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf