On 18 Oct 2024, at 0:46, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, October 17, 2024 23:58 -0500 Pete Resnick
<resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That should be mentioned in the Protocol Action announcement, and the
RFC Editor should do the right thing their Internet Standard status
page, but it doesn't need to be said in the document. Compare RFC
9293, which is now STD 7, and obsoleted RFC 793, but nowhere does it
say that it is "removing the Internet Standard status" from 793.
I say leave things as they are in the document.
The only thing that causes me to feel strongly about this is that
encountered a situation fairly recently where someone claimed that an
implementation that conformed to RFC 5321 was incorrect because RFC
821 was the Internet Standard for mail transport by SMTP.
Presumably the new document being an Internet Standard will solve that
sort of problem in the future, save your next point:
In an odd way, your example involving using RFC 793 supports my point:
if you retrieve the text form rfc-index from the RFC Editor site, you
will find that, while the "STD 7" designation is gone, the Status
listed is not, e.g., Historic but "Internet Standard". Same issue if
one goes to https://rfc-editor.org/ end enters "793" in the search
box: the page that turns up says "Internet Standard" in the Status
column.
Well, that is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed.
Now if, in one of your other capacities, you want to push through a
rule that says that, when one document obsoletes another, the status
of the obsoleted one is changed to Historic (or something else, but
not a BCP or Standards Track designation), I'd be delighted. Of
course, that would need IESG and RSAB signoff, community consensus or
at least consultation, possibly a published document, etc. That
should ideally get done before IETF 121 ends so as to not hold up
either 5322bis or 5321bis.
Given that being any sort of Standard is entirely an IETF designation,
this seems mostly on the IESG, though it certainly will require some
action on the part of the RFC Editor. I am perfectly happy to use my
RSWG hat for good and get at least something done during 121 to make
something happen for 5321bis and 5322bis. I think it should perfectly
clear what happens when one Internet Standard status document obsoletes
one whose STD number it is taking over. Whether in general there ought
to be a rule about changing the status of a document based on the
"Obsoletes" mark in a document that is not an Internet Standard is an
entirely different can of worms.
I would, of course, also like a pony.
I'll try to make sure that the saddle has sparkly sequins.
Either way, this sounds like a discussion that can be taken off of some
of these lists for the moment.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
