Sorry, meant to copy the IETF list on this and messed up.
john
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Monday, January 22, 2024 10:23 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
To: iesg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Status of RFC 952 ("DoD Internet host table
specification")
One small, and I hope easy, piece of a fairly complex off-list
conversation:
RFC 952 is listed as "Status: UNKNOWN" in the RFC index.
However, it is referenced from RFC 1123, an Internet Standard,
in a way that appears normative. RFC 1123, Section 2.1 starts
by saying:
"The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified
in RFC-952 [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is
hereby changed: ..."
That is normative by any definition I can think of. The
definition in RFC 1123 makes no sense unless one can read and
know the definition from RFC 952. So having the status of 952
as UNKNOWN is close to a logical contradiction.
HISTORIC would probably be appropriate for multiple reasons
including that we are no longer running on the "DoD Internet"
and host tables are no longer maintained, at least for general
use on the Internet, by the DDN NIC and available from them (See
Section 6.1.3.8 or RFC 1123). That, however, requires that we
understand "HISTORIC" in its normal sense, not a sense in which
all of the material there is obsolete and of no interest except
to historians (very close to a position I've heard lately).
Standards Track would be appropriate in some ways but a bit of
an embarrassment in others.
It is my understanding that this reclassification can be done
administratively, with no more than an announcement/statement
and perhaps an IETF Last Call (or maybe even less) and that it
does not require publication of an RFC. The alternative would
be to start updating RFC 1123 to clean up many statements and
references that are no longer relevant more than 34 years after
it was published. It has been pointed out to me by an AD that
such an effort would be (my words) implausible in the current
IETF.
However, RFC 952 with a status of UNKNOWN is confusing for
readers of RFC 1123 and something of an embarrassment. That is
very different from, e.g., a document describing or defining
aspects of the pre-TCP/IP network. Experience has shown that
the latter can be ignored and left UNKNOWN until we have
extensive spare time on our hands. What do we need to do to
make the status change, ideally with a minimum of pain, fuss,
and time requirements?
thanks,
john
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
