On 10/2/2013 11:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
As in, duh...
"Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents to Historic for many
reasons.
Sure. And you seem to think that it's important to publish an RFC that
documents the reasons. You seem to think that it will somehow affect
later handling of the historic document.
While an entirely reasonable theoretical premise, I'm not aware of its
having any empirical basis. Quite the opposite.
Further since your proposal constitutes additional work for someone, the
benefit of doing it should be clear and compelling. So far, what you've
offered is neither.
In fact, the general view around the IETF is that the rest of the world
deals with RFCs in a very coarse and inclusive manner, so that your
proposal for fine-grained, formal documentation of rationales and the
like constitutes mere noise to the rest of the world.
The situation would be different if a huge amount of additional
work were involved but it seems to me that almost all of the
required explanation is already in the write-up and that the
amount of effort required to approve an action consisting of a
document and a status change is the same as that required to
approve the status change only.
While it's laudable that you are volunteering to do this negligible
extra work that will cause negligible amounts of additional delay, it
still suffers the problem of producing negligible additional benefit.
If someone is all that interested in the reason the spec was moved to
Historic, they can consult the IETF archives.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net