On 2/9/2026 8:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
Not in the world that believes every RFC is a standard. "See, it says at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8164/ that RFC 8164 is historic."
"Don't be silly, I'm looking at ithttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8164.txt
and it says it isn't."
It would be nice if the world understood our processes but we have tons
of experience that tells us it doesn't. A document we can point at that
says it's dead would be a lot more persuasive.
ahh. So the concern is reissuing the exact same specification, but with
the document marked historic? Rght. That will make sure no one could
possibly misinterpret the status of the specification.
So, all Historic RFCs have had to charter a working group to get the spec
re-issued? Did all of these?
🔗
https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?page=All&pubstatus[]=Historic&pub_date_type=any&sortkey=Number&sorting=ASC
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?page=All&pubstatus[]=Historic&pub_date_type=any&sortkey=Number&sorting=ASC>
You proffered a particular example of misunderstanding current status.
That ignores the many other ways folk can misinterpret RFC issues.
For example, folk already have copies of the ARC spec. They are not
likely to go consult for a later version, if there are no technical changes.
Well, you might say, now at least we can point to a version of the spec
with the changed status. But, I will note, the above link serves
exactly the same purpose.
As always, discussions in the IETF about human behavior tends towards
mechanical trivialization and best-case analysis.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @[email protected]
+1.408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Northern California Coastal Region
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
