On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/19/2011 14:01, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Clearly, the view that making something historic when it's in active use is
offensive. No standards body could seek to stand behind their
specifications, or to give the impression of doing so, with such a position.
That's a fairly odd position to take, if we do something which turns out to be
a bad idea, should we stand behind it regardless of the validity of the
criticism?
The number of drafts, I've seen over the course of the last decade and a half
with the title "foo considered harmful" woulkd tend to indicate otherwise.
Define "active use."
If in fact no-one were using it there would be little point in engaging in the
activity.
rfc 5095 and 4966 were not created to address issues that were due to protocols
being dead to the world...
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf