Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The IESG is considering making this statement on the IESG Handling of Historic status.

We would appreciate community feedback.

Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June.

Thanks

spt

<statement begins>

RFC 2026 states the following:

A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level.

In practice, the Historic status is not automatically assigned to RFCs that have been "obsoleted". That is, when an RFC that contains the "Obsoletes: RFC XXXX" header is published the RFC editor does not automatically apply the Historic status to the XXXX RFC. Note that in some situations this is perfectly acceptable because multiple versions of an Internet Standard are permitted to "honor the installed base," as per RFC 2026.

If authors wish to change the status of RFCs that are in the obsoletes header to Historic, then the authors must include an explicit statement for the RFC editor to do so; preferably in the abstract and introduction. Further, when an AD sponsors a draft that includes the obsoletes header, then the AD should ask the authors whether the authors intended to move the RFC(s) listed in the obsoletes header to Historic status.

If an author wishes to publish a document directly to Historic status the preferred approach is to publish an I-D with the "Intended Status: Historic" in the header.

Moving a document to Historic status means that the document is "not [an] Internet Standards in any sense," as per RFC 2026.

</statement ends>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]