*> >> *> > 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