----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
To: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:20 PM
Noel,
Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
No.
What is needed is some lateral thinking, such as the proposal that instead of
trying to shoehorn an RFC into an inappropriate, closed set of maturity levels,
we use a completely different option, namely an Appplicability Statement that
spells out that this magnificent standards track, non-historic piece of
technology now has an extremely limited applicability, and unless you really
know what you are doing, forget it.
Tom Petch.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:34 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu;
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)
> From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
> RFC 2026's very terse definition of HISTORIC. According to RFC
2026,
> "A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
> specification or is for any other reason considered to be
obsolete
> is assigned to the Historic level." That's the entire definition.
> Anything more is read into it.
> ...
> A more likely interpretation is as follows:
> "the IETF is not likely to invest effort in the technology in the
> future"
> "the IETF does not encourage (or discourage) new deployments of
this
> technology.
But in giving other interpretations, are you thereby not comitting the
exact error you call out above: "Anything more is read into it."?
To me, "Historic" has always (including pre-2026) meant just what the
orginal meaning of the word is (caveat - see below) - something that is
now likely only of interest to people who are looking into the history
of
networking. (The dictionary definition is "Based on or concerned with
events in history".) I think "obsolete" is probably the best one-word
description (and note that 'obsolete' != 'obsolescent').
(Caveat: technically, it probably should have been 'historical', not
"historic" - "historic" actually means 'in the past, but very
noteworthy',
e.g. 'CYCLADES was a historic networking design', so not every
historical
protocol is historic.)
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf