On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/19/2011 14:01, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >> Clearly, the view that making something historic when it's in active use is offensive. No standards body could seek to stand behind their specifications, or to give the impression of doing so, with such a position. That's a fairly odd position to take, if we do something which turns out to be a bad idea, should we stand behind it regardless of the validity of the criticism? The number of drafts, I've seen over the course of the last decade and a half with the title "foo considered harmful" woulkd tend to indicate otherwise. > Define "active use." If in fact no-one were using it there would be little point in engaging in the activity. rfc 5095 and 4966 were not created to address issues that were due to protocols being dead to the world... _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf