John C Klensin wrote:
Sean,
Seems fine to me but, like Sam, I'd prefer to not clutter
abstracts For a specification RFC that is rendered Historic by
a new specification, the combination of an "Obsoletes" header
and a note in the Introduction ought to be sufficient.
I don't mind having a note in the Abstract, if editors of a particular
document want to make a possibly stronger (and easier to find) statement
about moving something to Historic.
While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to
also consider the model used to make a specification that is
simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms "not
recommended") Historic without having to have an I-D written and
processed into RFC via the same process used to create Standards
Track documents. In the cases in which we want to move a
specification to Historic because it is a bad idea, having an
RFC to explain why it was a bad idea seems appropriate. But for
the "no one cares about it any more" cases, it seems like a
lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question
"does anyone believe that our impression that no one cares is
incorrect?" might be in order (and much closer to the procedure
that was used when (and before) 2026 was adopted.
+1.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf