Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Does this document actually obsolete "STD1"? I'm not even sure what > that means... :-( Good question. Guessing, it means that the status of STD 68 claims that there is an STD 1, while STD 1 claims that there is no STD 66, let alone any STD 68. Go figure... :-| > If 2821 is moved into the SMTP STD, does 821 have to be removed? For STD 10, yes. I hope also for Brian's proposal, but I think we need an example for this acronym business, using all existing STDs, determined by some appropriate way (i.e. not limited to RFC 3700). > Not that I can think of a better adjective that starts with the > letter "D"... :-( How about "distinguished standard", or is that too ridiculous ? > one question I've seen discussed repeatedly is whether it's bad for > a specification to move to "Historic" - this came up several times > in DECRUFT, for example. It would be nice to make a statement about > this in a revised 2026. I don't think it IS bad - "Historic" can be > as gentle as "no one who cares still participates in IETF" - but > whether others agree or not, the document should say something about > this. Historic RFCs can be brilliant, but nevertheless they are historic. IMO "historic" does not necessarily mean "no one cares". Actually somebody cared enough to trigger the reclassification. And it does not mean that the historic RFC "was always a bad idea". It might have been a very good idea, later turning out to be not good enough for today's needs, e.g., UTF-7 (not yet historic, but a candidate). > it will be good to decide whether obsolete is more perjorative than > Historic, or vice versa, and say so. Tricky. As an example RFC 2821 claims to obsolete RFC 821, but IMO a PS cannot obsolete a STD, it might grow into a position where it replaces the old RFC as STD. Maybe 2821ter will finish off RFC 821. In theory, because RFC 821 is really already "historic", this could be made explicit. But then we'd have a STD 10 without SMTP for some years until 2821ter (or another successor of RFC 2821, this could be 2821bis promoted to STD "as is" in 2011) is ready to take over. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf