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

Benjamin,

RFC 4644, that is a reason to have this document written says:

>   The RFCs listed here define extensions that have thus far failed to
>     arouse substantial interest from implementers, or that were found to
>     be defective for general use.
I. e. these options are out-of-use and did not gain the implementators' 
popularity. Nearly the same is with IRTP, which I referred to.
Nevertheless I agree that this purpose of this draft is to say "if you 
implement TCP you don't need to implement these bits anymore"; the 
purpose of moving i.e. IRTP to Historic is contiguous - "this technology 
was eventually defined but revealed itself unacceptable/uninteresting; 
further implementations are discouraged"
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

04.02.2011 2:00, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins пишет:
> 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