On 19-Dec-24 06:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 18 Dec 2024, at 11:36, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2024-12-18, at 18:33, Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll ask for the third time: What's the downside to "Historic”?
The downside is that we’d need to do this for 663 RFCs (Brian
Carpenter’s number).
"Need"? How does doing this for 5 make it a requirement for the other
658?
Because in the real world, there is absolutely no distinction between
"PROPOSED STANDARD", "DRAFT STANDARD" and "INTERNET STANDARD", and
very little distinction between any of them and "BCP". And also,
I'm unclear (after re-reading that bit of RFC 2026) what the difference
is between "Historic" and "Obsoleted". The real issue, as Carsten
pointed out, is that the terms apply to a document, not to a protocol.
It would be mysterious to do this for 5 RFCs and not the 658 others.
Perhaps mysterious to an outsider, but who outside is really going to
look? The rest of those documents are at Proposed Standard. They never
show up in a list of things that (again, for better or worse) the IETF
has said, "These are stable and recommended". The 5 in question do. And
we have a documented mechanism for those 5 to say, "These are no longer
recommended." And it makes the website sane.
I don't consider "mysteriousness" a harm.
What is the harm in making these 5 Historic?
Harm? Probably none, except unnecessary joules.
Brian
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
