Les,
> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually > published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"? Yes, I see no point in being indirect. It used to be that the path to publication was brief. We’ve now ossified to the point where a technology can go through an entire life-cycle before we act. > But I thought the intent of Acee's question was to see if publishing this as > Experimental serves a useful purpose i.e., even if the feature is not being > actively deployed the protocol extensions seem like they could be useful > someday and we would prefer not to have them disappear from the official > protocol definition. > ?? And the code points are allocated and the code has shipped, so publishing something makes sense. Arguing about its status doesn’t. T _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
