Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs dot ucla dot edu> wrote: > PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas > obsolete?
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic, not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it, regardless of its currency or relevance. I remember a few months ago, it was proposed (evidently not for the first time) to move FTP to Historic, on the basis of its lack of airtight 21st-century security features, with no consideration for the innumerable existing systems and processes that have no need for top-notch security, and rely daily on FTP. I often see comments on this list about whether the "outside world" views the IETF as irrelevant. Declaring a commonly used, core process or protocol as Historic because something better exists might be a perfect example of this. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
