I'm in agreement with the purpose of updating these (and probably other documents) to reflect the current state of affairs. My comment is that the it is RFCs that move through the process, not parts of RFCs. So, it would seem to me that an update to RFC 1738 needs to be written: that drops wais, etc, and includes telnet, etc to be moved to Proposed Standard status. RFC 1738 can then move to Historic. If there are still experimental URIs, then they should be documented as such, reflecting their current status. Maybe you are doing that already, and I missed it or it wasn't clear. If so, I'm sorry. --Dean On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Larry Masinter wrote: > 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 > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf