Nick,
On 22-Jan-22 07:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Donald Eastlake wrote on 21/01/2022 17:34:
Why isn't the obsoleting of RFCs by later versions and the occasional
declaration of an RFC as Historic sufficient pruning?
if there are documents in the rfc library which are defunct, but neither
obsoleted nor declared historical, then there is an argument to say that
there's insufficient pruning. Eyeballing rfc-index, there seems to be
quite a number of documents of this form.
For example:
0760 DoD standard Internet Protocol. J. Postel. January 1980. (Format:
TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes IEN123) (Obsoleted by RFC0791) (Updated by
RFC0777) (Status: UNKNOWN) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0760)
That's IMNSHO exactly why we need a policy on this and a mechanism
for detecting any cases that shouldn't simply be marked HISTORIC,
and that's one reason why we need the new RFC Editor model that will
be formally proposed Real Soon Now.
I don't think we need to spend IESG time on this, however.
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
