Since I am the "individual" in question:
The problem is, for example:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793
RFC 793 is obsoleted, but its status still shows on that website as "INTERNET STANDARD" in big capital letters all over the place. When you click the link to list things at the Internet Standard status, it appears (amusingly without an STD number attached to it anymore). When you do a search, it appears. When you look at the doc info page or the document itself, INTERNET STANDARD appears.
It is clear that the status of none of these RFCs should show as "INTERNET STANDARD"; they simply aren't. Marking them as "obsolete" doesn't change their statuses. For better or worse, moving their statuses to "HISTORIC" does. And as Joe points out, that's what 2026 says to do.
Importantly, I haven't heard anyone say there is a downside to moving these things to "HISTORIC" status. Let's just do it please.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
On 17 Dec 2024, at 14:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
All of these RFCs have been obsoleted, most of them a long time ago. There is no requirement to reclassify them in the standards process. Anyone who checks them in the RFC index or in the corresponding information pages such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793 will immediately be informed that they have been osboleted by, e.g., RFC 9293. Anyone who just looks at the text of the RFCs will be none the wiser.
In my opinion there is no need to reclassify them, or any other formally obsoleted standards track document, as historic. If we reclassified these four documents, without doing the same for every other obsoleted standards track document, we would simply create four singularities, which would lead to confusion.
It would of course be quite easy to write a program to list all obsoleted standards track documents and propose to reclassify them all as Historic, but why bother? Well, since I already had a program I could easily modify to do so, I can tell you that there are 663 Standards Track RFCs that have been obsoleted, and 51 BCP RFCs that have been obsoleted. (Full list attached.)
I note that the status-change document doesn't explain why this is worth doing for these four documents in particular. I think it is an unjustified waste of time and effort that will cause confusion.
Regards
Brian CarpenterOn 18-Dec-24 05:22, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the
following status changes:
RFC793 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Transmission Control Protocol)RFC1065 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Structure and identification of management information for TCP/IP-based
internets)RFC1723 from Internet Standard to Historic
(RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information)RFC1725 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Post Office Protocol - Version 3)The supporting document for this request can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-793-1065-1723-1725-to-historic/
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2025-01-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.The affected documents can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc793/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1065/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1723/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1725/IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-793-1065-1723-1725-to-historic/ballot/
IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
