Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft. I do so merely as an individual. It might be a good idea to provide some additional clarity on when to market something Historic, but your document requires a bit of clarity on its own as to what your motivating logic is. Why, for instance, do you believe it is important to split "deprecated" and "obsoleted"? Also, Scott had to choose some language to describe Historic. He probably did not mean for us to get hung up on the word "superceded", a problem from which this draft seems to suffer. I bring to your attention RFC-4450, in which we made a bulk status change of a bunch of PS to Historic precisely because we couldn't find anyone using those protocols. However, such observations are imprecise. For one, it is hard to observe what is going on on the Internet, and those who do don't usually share their data (there is some, but it is often regionally based, like the GINORMOUS store at ETHZ). Another issue is that a protocol that is not detectable on the Internet might be in use on private networks. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf