Mike, IESG, I am going to withdraw my "Historic" request for the pre-IETF RFCs, and I will let the IESG decide what the proper status is for IETF RFCs that have been completely obsoleted by newer RFCs further along in the standards track. I'll start a discussion on the rfc-interest list regarding the proper status for pre-IETF "UNKNOWN" RFCs. Thanks, Andy On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andy - > > As I said elsewhere - it seems silly to move a superseded document to "Historic" when you don't move the Standard to "Historic". In the case of three of these RFCs, the new entry will read "Obsoleted by XXXX" "Status: Historic". If I happen to read that entry and not notice the "Obsoleted by" or not know that what we really meant was "the document is historic, but not the standard", I might be pretty confused if I later encounter the document's successor or something in the wild that implements one of the versions of the standard. > > The appropriate status for superseded documents is "Obsoleted by:" with whatever status the standard currently has. That's always been the understood meaning and I'm not sure why we're suddenly going back and changing things. If you want to move the three document groups of standards to Historical en mass, I'm fine with that, but not with just going back and declaring that a previous version of the standard is Historic - way too confusing. > > With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) - they aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP) and we shouldn't be twiddling with their status. They don't belong to us. Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even technical in nature. A number of them are administrivia of the early Internet and ARPANET. The status of "Unknown" is probably misleading though - maybe "Pre-IETF"? > > Mike > > > > At 04:21 PM 10/28/2011, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >>Randy, >> >>I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can >>blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have >>discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-) >> >>Cheers, >>Andy >> >>On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Randy, >>> >>> Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic. Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have to find or store something up there. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >>>> Randy Bush >>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM >>>> To: Frank Ellermann >>>> Cc: IETF Discussion >>>> Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs >>>> >>>> >> we don't have enough real work to do? >>>> > >>>> > Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago >>>> > I tried to understand a discussion about the >>>> > "ISE" (independent stream), and gave up on >>>> > it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs >>>> > which updated other RFCs turned out to be >>>> > as complex as the colossal cave adventure. >>>> >>>> QED >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ietf mailing list >>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Ietf mailing list >>Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf