Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 13-Mar-25 13:06, Pete Resnick wrote:
Without hats:
On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:42, Jay Daley wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025, at 12:40, Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 10:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
a) People generally agree that we should indicate obsolescence and
historic status on RFCs
b) The metadata near the top of the definitive format for an RFC can
change if that RFC is made obsolete or historic
c) All the publication formats will be regenerated when (b) happens
d) The indicator of the status change will be at or near the top of
the
regenerated publication formats
I like this formulation better. For one, it requires less of a
fundamental change to how the revision is produced relative to the
original.
Works for me too. Thanks.
I think we need to be careful about Historic. Obsolete is clearly
strictly metadata and is defined only by the RFC Series, AFAIK.
Historic, on the other hand, is defined in RFC 2026. While section 4.2.4
defines it as one of the "non-standards track maturity levels" like
Informational or Experimental, sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 describes
Historic as a part of the IETF Standards Process, and the IESG treats
moves to Historic much differently than it treats the Obsoletes metadata
(more like advancements in the Standards Track). Historic has definitely
been used in ways not consistent with 2026, and either way there is no
doubt that it would be good if Historic (along with Proposed Standard
and Internet Standard) status should be shown on RFCs, but we should
probably tread lightly and avoid "crossing the streams". (A simple
document clarifying the use of Historic would probably address the
issue.)
The long discussion starting at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/0x_yfkNx4dQ9_SspU7g_uiIxR3A
indeed shows that we (the IETF) need some clarification on this for
the standards track. For RSWG purposes, is it enough to agree that "Historic"
does not imply "Obsoleted" and that "Obsoleted" does not imply "Historic"?
(But while we're here, I remain unhappy that the status "Unknown" and
the stream "Legacy" persist. It is perhaps a bug that RFC 7841 doesn't
mention the Legacy stream - at the very least we should describe what it is.
[There's an operational metadata problem with the Legacy stream that
I will report elsewhere.]
Also, the distinction between "Unknown" and "Historic" escapes me.
The most recent "Unknown" RFC dates from October 1989 - what could
be wrong with changing all the Unknowns to Historic?)
Regards
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
