--On Monday, March 07, 2011 10:50 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> wrote:
The IAB and IESG control STD1, and have every right and in
fact a responsibility to say what status they think any
document has. You or anyone else can disagree and have your
own list.
The "historicization" of RFC 1227 provides an interesting
example of this. Without speculating on the motivations
behind that decision, I think it does provide a clear example
of an explicitly experimental protocol that was actually
getting significant use at the time being declared historic.
This is pure speculation --if I ever knew, I've forgotten-- but
it is possible that questions about the reasons for that
decision and others contributed to the IESG's later
conclusion/policy that changing something to Historic requires
documentation in the RFC Series. I've disagreed with that
conclusion from time to time on the grounds that it creates an
excessively heavyweight and resource-consuming requirement.
I've even proposed and advocated alternative ways to
appropriately document such decisions. However, the motivation
for better documentation of reclassification decisions is clear.
Your comment shows why documenting these things in some
easily-accessible way is appropriate and desirable.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf