Noel,
Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:34 AM
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)
>
> > From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > RFC 2026's very terse definition of HISTORIC. According to RFC
> 2026,
> > "A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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." That's the entire definition.
> > Anything more is read into it.
> > ...
> > A more likely interpretation is as follows:
> > "the IETF is not likely to invest effort in the technology in the
> > future"
> > "the IETF does not encourage (or discourage) new deployments of
> this
> > technology.
>
> But in giving other interpretations, are you thereby not comitting the
> exact error you call out above: "Anything more is read into it."?
>
> To me, "Historic" has always (including pre-2026) meant just what the
> orginal meaning of the word is (caveat - see below) - something that is
> now likely only of interest to people who are looking into the history
> of
> networking. (The dictionary definition is "Based on or concerned with
> events in history".) I think "obsolete" is probably the best one-word
> description (and note that 'obsolete' != 'obsolescent').
>
> (Caveat: technically, it probably should have been 'historical', not
> "historic" - "historic" actually means 'in the past, but very
> noteworthy',
> e.g. 'CYCLADES was a historic networking design', so not every
> historical
> protocol is historic.)
>
> Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf