Hi Andy -
As I said elsewhere - it seems silly to move a superseded document to
"Historic" when you don't move the Standard to "Historic". In the case of
three of these RFCs, the new entry will read "Obsoleted by XXXX" "Status:
Historic". If I happen to read that entry and not notice the "Obsoleted by" or
not know that what we really meant was "the document is historic, but not the
standard", I might be pretty confused if I later encounter the document's
successor or something in the wild that implements one of the versions of the
standard.
The appropriate status for superseded documents is "Obsoleted by:" with
whatever status the standard currently has. That's always been the understood
meaning and I'm not sure why we're suddenly going back and changing things. If
you want to move the three document groups of standards to Historical en mass,
I'm fine with that, but not with just going back and declaring that a previous
version of the standard is Historic - way too confusing.
With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) - they aren't
IETF documents, they weren't adopted as Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP)
and we shouldn't be twiddling with their status. They don't belong to us.
Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even technical in nature.
A number of them are administrivia of the early Internet and ARPANET. The
status of "Unknown" is probably misleading though - maybe "Pre-IETF"?
Mike
At 04:21 PM 10/28/2011, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Randy,
I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can
blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have
discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-)
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica
<rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:
Randy,
Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic.
Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while
you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have
to find or store something up there.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM
To: Frank Ellermann
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs
we don't have enough real work to do?
Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago
I tried to understand a discussion about the
"ISE" (independent stream), and gave up on
it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs
which updated other RFCs turned out to be
as complex as the colossal cave adventure.
QED
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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