I previously sent my comments to the IESG, but I was asked to re-raise the issue on the IETF mailing list because "... The IESG at this point seems to want public guidance on a document by document basis..." on the topic of how to move old documents or protocols to Historic status. In this case, it is the raft of URI schemes currently only documented in RFC 1738. So, to recap: I think it is good to update the URI scheme documents that are in widespread, current and growing use: "ftp", "file", "telnet" to move these beyond their "Proposed Standard" status, update the descriptions, and bring the results along on standards track, by insuring that the documents are consistent with widespread interest. I think it is a bad idea to issue new documents for URI schemes merely to move those schemes to Historic status, "wais", "prospero", and even "gopher". I include "gopher" even though there may be active or even new "gopher" client implementations, because I don't believe the gopher protocol or the gopher URI scheme will ever move to full standard. Does anyone see any real need to issue a new document on the "gopher" URI scheme merely to declare it "Historic"? Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf