Re: "Historic" is wrong

[Mike StJohns <mstjohns=40comcast.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rob - there’s two parts to every RFC - the authors and the publishers.  

I don’t object to more text, but I do think we need to write specific language down that can be validated and added by the publications process.

In years long past, I had to come up with an objective scheme for the NIC to issue subdomains for .gov.  I needed something that a random contractor could check and verify without having to express an opinion.    I think that mostly applies here.  E.g. write down the txt you want and the conditions that apply to the text and lets add that to the SOP for the RFC editor.

Mike 

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 27, 2024, at 08:58, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.