Hi Ross,
At 03:23 PM 24-12-2024, 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
This 2011 document is "Informational":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6239 The status section
says that it represents the consensus of the community and it has
received public review. A reader [1] can see the current status on
the right (metadata sidebar). There would have been consensus for
the status change; the document is labelled as "Historic". The
status section does not reflect that.
The IAB said that the statement in the status section which describes
the review of the document is an important component as:
1. It clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and
2. It gives the reader an understanding of how to consider
its content.
One alternative is to update the status section to inform a reader
how to consider the contents today. That's not practical as the
section is part of the document. Another alternative is not to
include status information which could become outdated in future.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. An errata report was filed in March 2024:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6239 That general
means that someone read the RFC. I assume that the reader has a good
understanding of the subject matter (please see the note).
