Rob, See my most recent note (and Keith's and Geert's that preceded it and John Levine's recent one that followed it). Recent best practice suggesting that ssh is a better option for most applications on the main/public Internet is not sufficient justification for moving it to Historic, no matter how passionately you and some others feel about that, especially so because there is no standards-track definition for SSH. In particular, both because of the lack of that status for SSH and the other issues that have been raised, there is _no_ standards track replacement for Telnet. It _is_ more than sufficient justification for: (1) Getting an I-D posted that thoroughly describes SSH (and any implementation variations on it), its Security Considerations issues, etc., into the queue for standardization. (2) Writing an Applicability Statement that describes the issues with Telnet, why it may not be appropriate for general use, what the alternative(s) are, and in what sorts of circumstance it might still be appropriate. I, for one, await those I-Ds. Or you can continue to say "doesn't change my opinion..." You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but, given the other opinions that have been expressed on this thread, my guess is that you would have considerable difficulty demonstrating IETF consensus for just changing Telnet's Status classification from "Internet Standard" to "Historic" by re-marking it. I think you'd get further if there were "some text that indicates why it has been marked as historic", as you suggest below but, given that it is a Internet Standard and still in active use in some quarters, that text should almost come in the form of an RFC and some some comment somewhere. And that takes up back to a version of (2) above although maybe a lighter-weight one. Just my opinion, of course. john --On Thursday, August 1, 2024 21:22 +0000 "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Lloyd, > > But this doesn't change my opinion that it should be marked as > historic. I'm not suggesting that you can't use it (e.g., in > those rare circumstances where you cannot run something more > secure), or that implementations need to be deleted, or new > implementations cannot be written. > > All I am saying is that my understanding is that best practice, at > least for the last 10 years or so, has been to use ssh instead of > telnet, and hence marking telnet as historic helps signal that to > the wider world (particularly if there is some text that indicates > why it has been marked as historic). > > Does this really matter? Probably not, since I think that world + > dog already knows this anyway. In terms of updating document > status, it feels that often IETF is the last one to the party … > > Regards, > Rob > > > From: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thursday, 1 August 2024 at 21:50 > To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx>, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > ietf@xxxxxxxx Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: TELNET to > HISTORIC Re: FTP > nixed? it's installed, and supported. you enable it with a checkbox. > > https://phoenixnap.com/kb/telnet-windows > > Lloyd Wood > lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > On 11 Jul 2024, at 13:10, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Windows nixed their TELNET client a > decade ago
