--On Monday, March 07, 2011 10:50 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The IAB and IESG control STD1, and have every right and in
>> fact a responsibility to say what status they think any
>> document has. You or anyone else can disagree and have your
>> own list.
>
> The "historicization" of RFC 1227 provides an interesting
> example of this. Without speculating on the motivations
> behind that decision, I think it does provide a clear example
> of an explicitly experimental protocol that was actually
> getting significant use at the time being declared historic.
This is pure speculation --if I ever knew, I've forgotten-- but
it is possible that questions about the reasons for that
decision and others contributed to the IESG's later
conclusion/policy that changing something to Historic requires
documentation in the RFC Series. I've disagreed with that
conclusion from time to time on the grounds that it creates an
excessively heavyweight and resource-consuming requirement.
I've even proposed and advocated alternative ways to
appropriately document such decisions. However, the motivation
for better documentation of reclassification decisions is clear.
Your comment shows why documenting these things in some
easily-accessible way is appropriate and desirable.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf