Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

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

 




On 10/4/11 9:03 AM, "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>When I say "developing from" the document, I don't mean "using the
>protocol specified by the document in a static deployment", but
>"referencing the document in new deployments, or actively trying to
>revise the protocol therein".


I don't understand this aspect.  If an RFC is deployed, even widely
deployed, but no new extensions are being done, and no developers are
clamoring for changes, you want to move it to Historic?  Wouldn't that be
misleading to anyone wanting to implement it in any situation where they
want to interoperate with existing deployments?  Perhaps that's what you
meant by "referencing the document in new deployments," but how would
people on the IESG or even in the IETF as a whole know about everyone
everywhere who might be trying to use a protocol?

_______________________________________________
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]