Why do we care if there are still implementations that are based on these documents in use?
The important question is whether there are going to be new or revised implementations based on these documents.
A new implementation for tn5250 is about as likely as a new implementation for NTP.
Standards have been invented for creating markets.
If the market is mature, you may not see many new entrants, but the existing players still need the standard to keep the market intact.
(Of course, tn5250 is a strange market as it is ancillary to one created by a specific vendor, but that's not my point.)
Maybe we need a new category STABLE? (But even that is not the case for tn5250, as evidenced by draft-murphy-iser-telnet-02.txt.)
So what does HISTORIC mean?
-- bad protocol (advice is to get rid of it), as in RIPv1
-- bad specification, but the protocol is alright
-- an underlying/related technology is dying out slowly
-- an underlying/related technology is used mainly in parts of the world many IETFers don't visit that often
-- the market is stable, so there won't be new implementations
-- existing open source implementations are doing well, so there won't be new implementations
-- there is unlikely to be new development about this standard, as in IPv4
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf