Before today, Bob Braden wrote: > Historic might imply that they were once in service, > but have later been replaced/deprecated. In fact, these > protocols were always, and are still, *experimental*. > It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental > category and be done with it. +1 Subsequently, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > As I've mentioned before, I think that the problem is the > definition of Historic status. It is not correct. I disagree that the definition of Historic status is incorrect. Separately, I think there is an underlying procedural confusion lurking here. First, it is important to recall that not all RFCs are IETF RFCs. Second, many RFCs (both long ago and continuing now) were published as Individual Submissions to the RFC-Editor, or by the IAB, or by the IRTF. Such RFCs are not IETF RFCs. Meanwhile, moving a document from some status to Historic is most frequently an IETF/IESG process (and having the IESG make the reclassification seems to be what was suggested for these ancient RFCs). However, the IESG lacks authority to change unilaterally the status of a non-IETF-track RFC. This is why, for example, it is important that the recent I-Ds about deprecating RFC-1320 and RFC-1321, the Informational status Individual Submission track RFCs that specify MD4 and MD5 respectively, already specifically note that the author(s) of the original RFCs agree(s) to the reclassification from Informational status to Historic status. [1] As an earlier note from Bob Braden to this list observed, <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65034.html> the 3 ancient RFCs being discussed are experimental (i.e. not on the IETF standards-track). So far as I know (NB: I wasn't involved with the 4 RFCs being discussed in this thread :-) none of the 4 RFCs being discussed in this thread was published on the IETF track. Yours, Ran [1] An Aside: I agree that the reclassification is sensible technically, and am very happy that the author of the I-Ds proposing reclassification has obtained consent from the original author(s), and am also very happy that the original authors agreed to the reclassification of their non-IETF RFCs. Following the correct process is important. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf