Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undepl

Mykyta,

On 3 Feb 2011, at 15:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> However I'd like to raise some questions not directly connected to this 
> document.  I wonder why those who said a few weeks ago that historicizing 
> some documents in the similar situation is not appropriate do not object now. 
>  The arguments of these folks were that RFC 2026 sets the criteria for 
> Historic status as 'replaced by other doc' and did not consider 'being 
> deprecated' (what exactly we have in the current case) as weighty reason for 
> historicizing document.
I am not sure which of the many "move to historic" proposals you have proposed 
recently you are referring to but IMO there is a difference between your 
proposals and that of Lars, namely:

Your proposals fell into one of two categories:
1) Protocol X is old so we should make it historic for housekeeping reasons
2) URI Y has never been used so we should make it historic

Whereas while Lars' document is doing some housekeeping it is really saying "if 
you implement TCP you don't need to implement these bits anymore" so it has a 
clear value to people writing new TCP stack implementations.

In comparison your proposals were housekeeping for the sake of housekeeping and 
provided no value to the wider community.

HTH
Ben

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