Hi -
From: "Rémi Després" <remi(_dot_)despres(_at_)free(_dot_)fr>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>
...
I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
widespread use for that particular application at the time.
RFC 1227 specified an experimental protocol.
The 6to4 specification is standard track.
Declaring historic a standard track specification although it still serves
legitimate needs would, AFAIK, be a precedent, a regrettable one IMHO.
Consider, then, RFC 1157.
It was, quite rightly, declared historic years ago, even though it
was a full standard and in rather widespread use at the time.
Despite that declaration, it remains in use. This despite all the
good reasons that its replacement should be used instead.
The point is that the "historic" declaration can be a statement
about how the IETF wants things to be, rather than how they are.
If one happens to be a user or vendor of a "historic" technology,
the declaration might sting a little, but it's really not a big deal, IMO.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf