--On Monday, January 6, 2025 11:33 +1300 Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 29 Dec 2024, at 09:57, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> There are at least two more: >> >> 3) The protocol is obsolete and no one cares any more but, while >> there is nothing inherently unsafe about it, we advise against its >> use. Example: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with RFC 594, >> at least if one has a working IMP floating around (but those >> devices are, themselves, Historic). >> >> 4) The protocol specification has been superceded by newer >> specifications but the document is still identified as Standards >> Track (sometimes even Internet Standard) and there is nothing >> unsafe about it (at least any more so than the successor >> documents). >> >>> In most cases we mean (1), but the industry hears (2). >> >> Except when we mean (3) or (4) -- or should be using some variation >> on "Historic" but have not bothered -- in which case "the industry" >> just gets confused and maybe questions either our sanity or >> willingness to take responsibility. > > In software releases, all four of these cases would be covered by > the term "deprecated". More or less, yes (and I think your observation is very helpful although possibly not for the reason you intended). The first of the four is a little marginal because "deprecated" has some negative implications while the first might just be "frozen". For software -- which RFC specifications are not -- "frozen and we aren't going to fix any bugs that might appear" might have some negative implications, but might also mean "carefully tested and, after long experience, believed (with high confidence) to either be bug free or that any bugs are known and tolerable". For a technical specification, much closer to the latter since there is no implication in (1) of "you should stop using this" which "deprecated" certainly implies. Is that hair-splitting? Absolutely so, but that was, to a considerable extent the point. If we are ok with a fuzzy definition that leaves doubt about exactly what is meant, "deprecated" is probably ok, but so is "historic". If we think precision is important, then we probably need to invent some new terms rather than trying to find a single, blanket term that is least pessimal for the collection of cases being covered. thanks, john
