----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <v6ops@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:20 PM > Noel, > > Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge? > No. What is needed is some lateral thinking, such as the proposal that instead of trying to shoehorn an RFC into an inappropriate, closed set of maturity levels, we use a completely different option, namely an Appplicability Statement that spells out that this magnificent standards track, non-historic piece of technology now has an extremely limited applicability, and unless you really know what you are doing, forget it. Tom Petch. > 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 "A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf