I would suggest that the pre-IETF RFCs that weren't adopted as Internet standards (I.e. the first four you listed) are not properly the purview of the IETF for the purpose of declaring them historical. For the other three - a quick check indicates these were properly superseded as you note. The Historical status is for the Standard, not for one of its previous document versions. The appropriate status for the document is superseded, the status for the standards (and the current documents ) should remain as is, unless they are no longer being seen in the wild. While I appreciate the cleanup attempts, let's try not to overreach. Mike Sent from my iPad On Oct 28, 2011, at 0:45, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm in favor of moving these RFCs to Historic: > > RFC 1005 (ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol (enhanced AHIP)), > RFC 979 (PSN End-to-End functional specification), > RFC 878 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) and all predecessors, > RFC 852 (ARPANET short blocking feature), > > and do not mind moving these, which are superseded by others, to Historic: > > RFC 1490 (Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay) and PS predecessor, > RFC 1293 (Inverse Address Resolution Protocol), > RFC 1619 (PPP over SONET/SDH). > > However, with respect to the first list: there are a great number of RFCs which are also to be classified as Historic, and this list exceeds the provided several times (at least look at RFC 1000, bullet 2). With respect to the second list: there are a great number of other RFCs which have been supersedes by others, and there are really a few which deserve not moving them to Historic. > > Or this is the first round of clean-up only? > > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf