Re: "Historic" is wrong

["Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that we are not the protocol police, but +1 to having a short easily to understand banner on old RFCs. We could have a few different suggestions of text that could be used.

 

Rather than saying “no not use”, we could just say “The IETF advises you not to use …

 

Rob

 

 

From: Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 25 December 2024 at 09:23
To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "Historic" is wrong

We're not net.cops.  Happy holidays.

Eliot

On 25.12.2024 00:23, Ross Finlayson wrote:

Here’s an off-the-wall idea that you can either mull over or laugh at over Christmas (whether or not you celebrate it):

Instead of labeling RFCs with a single adjective (that may be ambiguous or easily misunderstood), why not instead label RFCs with a directive about what we want readers to actually do with its contents?  E.g.,

   - This protocol is insecure; do not implement it

   - Do not implement this version; refer to an updated RFC instead

    Ross.