Bruce Lilly wrote:
>> There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it
>> postdates RFC 2026.
> Interesting. Are there any others?
Maybe 4156 (wais) & 4157 (prospero). That's a bit special,
because it's a part of the effort to get rid of 1738.
> I have heard that an effort to publish a particular obsolete
> specification as Historic received strong pushback, with the
> recommendation for publication as Informational.
If you have son-of-1036 in mind, "strong pushback" isn't how
I recall Henry's info - it was more like "lacking enthusiasm".
I can't check it at the moment.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf