On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:45 PM Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> < snip>
> What Historic means in IETF terms is that IETF process has finished.
it sure did not mean that when I edited RFC 2026
since RFC 793 has not been actually updated since RFC 3168 in 2001 I guess
it is time to move it to Historic
Its actually one of the more frequently updated RFCs.
4.2.4 Historic
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
"Historic" is historical.)You are nitpicking there and getting it wrong.
IETF continues to publish errata after a WG has closed. That represents a continuation of the IETF process in my view. While some folk successfully blocked a formal ongoing review of existing standards in the 1980s and 1990s, this has not been how the IETF actually works for at least a decade.
While I admit it is possible that an errata might be accepted for an Historic document, I really can't imagine a case where a defect were so egregious as to require an errata but not a new document.
Just as RFCs have never been a 100% accurate guide to behavior on the wire, IETF process has diverged to an even greater degree.
And how the IETF behaves and the behavior most likely to obtain the desired ends have also frequently diverged.
