Re: Historic (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  *> >>
  *> > This must be some new redefinition of the meaning of a Historic RFC.
  *> > In the past, it meant "don't do it this way anymore, we no longer
  *> > recommend it, there's another way to accomplish the same goal".
  *> > So, for the PPP items listed, what's the better way to accomplish the
  *> > same goal?
  *> 
  *> No, it's the old definition of Historic.
  *> 

Harald,

I am puzzled by your comment.  I believe that Bill Simpson is correct
about the "old" (historic) definition of Historic category, defined by
Jon Postel.  Jon believed that if you have a standard defining
interoperability, it is ALWAYS a standard unless there is a compelling
reason to warn people away.  The IETF can change the meaning of
Historic, but let's not change history.

Bob Braden

 
  *> The definition "Historic = Bad" is a change that has been encouraged by the 
  *> practice of not routinely making documents Historic.
  *> 
  *> This is, to my mind, no more sensible than the twisting of "Experimental = 
  *> Kiss of Death" that was the vogue some years ago, which we seem to have 
  *> successfully untwisted.
  *> 
  *> I think it makes sense for Historic to mean what RFC 2026 said it was.
  *> And if it does not, we should explicitly decide to say otherwise.
  *> 
  *>                   Harald
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> Ietf mailing list
  *> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
  *> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]