Hi,
Just thought I would point out that moving these to Historic seems called for by our own BCP documents. I am surprised the debate is so spirited.
There are plenty of security-related BCPs. I'll just cite BCP 188, since it has links to many of the others.
To Geert's point about internal use of telnet, I think that is covered below. I do not doubt the use he describes is important, but I don't think it is "the Internet" as defined by BCP95:
At the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined
technologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for
networks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.
In attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps
the fairest balance is struck by this formulation: "protocols and
practices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected
to have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to
form part of the infrastructure of the Internet."
technologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for
networks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.
In attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps
the fairest balance is struck by this formulation: "protocols and
practices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected
to have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to
form part of the infrastructure of the Internet."
I think these are clearly failing the "secure and scalable" part there. Besides, moving these to Historic doesn't mean they can't be used.
thanks,
Rob
