There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting [email protected] on Thursday December 18, 2025: >> >> The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with >> Paul about moving this RFC to historic. >> >> The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes >> historical data and does not reflect current practices for this >> domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies. >> >> Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as >> Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next >> year. > > While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is > is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA > procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. > While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other > forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing > an RFC with Informational status was the norm. > > I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation > for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of > whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as > historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of > them. > > kim [...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) [email protected] / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
