Mike, IESG, I am going to withdraw my "Historic" request for the pre-IETF RFCs, and I will let the IESG decide what the proper status is for IETF RFCs that have been completely obsoleted by newer RFCs further along in the standards track.
I'll start a discussion on the rfc-interest list regarding the proper status for pre-IETF "UNKNOWN" RFCs. Thanks, Andy On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Michael StJohns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andy - > > As I said elsewhere - it seems silly to move a superseded document to > "Historic" when you don't move the Standard to "Historic". In the case of > three of these RFCs, the new entry will read "Obsoleted by XXXX" "Status: > Historic". If I happen to read that entry and not notice the "Obsoleted by" > or not know that what we really meant was "the document is historic, but not > the standard", I might be pretty confused if I later encounter the document's > successor or something in the wild that implements one of the versions of the > standard. > > The appropriate status for superseded documents is "Obsoleted by:" with > whatever status the standard currently has. That's always been the > understood meaning and I'm not sure why we're suddenly going back and > changing things. If you want to move the three document groups of standards > to Historical en mass, I'm fine with that, but not with just going back and > declaring that a previous version of the standard is Historic - way too > confusing. > > With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) - they > aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as Internet Standards (unlike TCP > and IP) and we shouldn't be twiddling with their status. They don't belong > to us. Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even technical > in nature. A number of them are administrivia of the early Internet and > ARPANET. The status of "Unknown" is probably misleading though - maybe > "Pre-IETF"? > > Mike > > > > At 04:21 PM 10/28/2011, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >>Randy, >> >>I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can >>blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have >>discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-) >> >>Cheers, >>Andy >> >>On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Randy, >>> >>> Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic. >>> Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while >>> you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have >>> to find or store something up there. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> Randy Bush >>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM >>>> To: Frank Ellermann >>>> Cc: IETF Discussion >>>> Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs >>>> >>>> >> we don't have enough real work to do? >>>> > >>>> > Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago >>>> > I tried to understand a discussion about the >>>> > "ISE" (independent stream), and gave up on >>>> > it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs >>>> > which updated other RFCs turned out to be >>>> > as complex as the colossal cave adventure. >>>> >>>> QED >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ietf mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Ietf mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
