I would suggest that the pre-IETF RFCs that weren't adopted as Internet
standards (I.e. the first four you listed) are not properly the purview of the
IETF for the purpose of declaring them historical.
For the other three - a quick check indicates these were properly superseded as
you note. The Historical status is for the Standard, not for one of its
previous document versions. The appropriate status for the document is
superseded, the status for the standards (and the current documents ) should
remain as is, unless they are no longer being seen in the wild.
While I appreciate the cleanup attempts, let's try not to overreach.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 28, 2011, at 0:45, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hello,
I'm in favor of moving these RFCs to Historic:
RFC 1005 (ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol (enhanced AHIP)),
RFC 979 (PSN End-to-End functional specification),
RFC 878 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) and all predecessors,
RFC 852 (ARPANET short blocking feature),
and do not mind moving these, which are superseded by others, to Historic:
RFC 1490 (Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay) and PS predecessor,
RFC 1293 (Inverse Address Resolution Protocol),
RFC 1619 (PPP over SONET/SDH).
However, with respect to the first list: there are a great number of RFCs
which are also to be classified as Historic, and this list exceeds the
provided several times (at least look at RFC 1000, bullet 2). With respect
to the second list: there are a great number of other RFCs which have been
supersedes by others, and there are really a few which deserve not moving
them to Historic.
Or this is the first round of clean-up only?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
_______________________________________________
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