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A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification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