> Date: 2005-08-28 14:45 > From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@xxxxxxxxx> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > The Historic category of published RFCs can be used for documents which > > specify a protocol or technology which is known to be harmful to the > > Internet. However, RFC 2026 appears to have no provision for getting to > > Historic except via the Standards Track [...] > > What makes you say that? It sure isn't what I read from RFC 2026. It > says this in Section 4.2.4: > > A specification that has been superseded by a more recent > specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is > assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the > word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of > "Historic" is historical.) That defines the sort of documents that fit into the category, but doesn't specify how they get there. It is analogous to 4.2.1 (Experimental) and 4.2.2 (Informational). > Seems to me that the proviso "is for any other reason considered to be > obsolete" could reasonably be construed to cover the initial publication > of an obsolete specification. It's certainly true that the most common > way to get to Historic is to start on the standards track and then get > retired, but I see nothing in RFC 2026 that says (or even implies) that > this is the only way. The only specific procedures for getting to Historic in 2026 are in sections 6.2 and 6.3 and involve getting to Historic from the Standards Track. Note that section 4.2.3 gives procedures for Informational and Experimental RFCs, but that the only specific procedures for Historic are in sections 6.2 and 6.3. Now I personally wouldn't mind a revision to 2026 where the same procedures for Informational and Experimental were also applicable to Historic (while retaining the mechanisms for migrating from the Standards Track to Historic). For that matter, I'd also prefer to see the procedure modified to include IESG review including IETF Last Call for individual submissions (2026 specifies going directly to the RFC Editor). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf