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.
Going forward, can we make marking a document as "Historic" (I really think
we should change the term), be an errata on the document so that it gets
patched? I realize that this likely misses everything prior to XML
transition, but let's plan for success.
> Rather than saying “no not use”, we could just say “The IETF advises
> you not to use …
I think that there are two levels here and this is where the term fails:
1) the protocol is done, and extensions are unwelcome.
(keep using it as you prefer).
2) the protocol is unsafe and not only should you not extend it, but you need
to plan to stop using it.
In most cases we mean (1), but the industry hears (2).
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
