--On l�rdag, desember 18, 2004 11:51:56 -0800 Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*> >> *> > This must be some new redefinition of the meaning of a Historic RFC. *> > In the past, it meant "don't do it this way anymore, we no longer *> > recommend it, there's another way to accomplish the same goal". *> > So, for the PPP items listed, what's the better way to accomplish the *> > same goal? *> *> No, it's the old definition of Historic. *>
Harald,
I am puzzled by your comment. I believe that Bill Simpson is correct about the "old" (historic) definition of Historic category, defined by Jon Postel. Jon believed that if you have a standard defining interoperability, it is ALWAYS a standard unless there is a compelling reason to warn people away. The IETF can change the meaning of Historic, but let's not change history.
With all respect to Jon Postel - the IETF's meaning of Historic is defined by reference to IETF consensus, not to Jon Postel's opinion.
We may be confused by different meanings of "old" - I was referring to 1994.
Shows how young I am, I guess :-)
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
