Re: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic

SM <> Fri, 08 July 2011 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76EE21F8739 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 03:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KaJRcIp5shYQ for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 03:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AEC21F87AF for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p68AwKjF026891; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 03:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1310122705; bh=D/BQfGxqUhoGN47vIl3Q15fz5aKjcP/X7fW9WS0PpCw=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NwJ8hy1T4yZ5yZdfzej28IIoM97/mrLXYhW/uWhZNsdl8HRtpyW/jQtC/LXRENeYj 5unBfRblWNUXROhPCAeO8pwVU5abdVahtKMAPF48wJx4yJQRqR33JJhBWmMczlTULA Jtz0usk3W20lv4x15crP3r/2nZdHWZlo8HsMAT3k=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1310122705; bh=D/BQfGxqUhoGN47vIl3Q15fz5aKjcP/X7fW9WS0PpCw=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Wee1tBo6XpF+tx8vVus4n1W6POxUHahiGK0Fz2f1csPD5Ud8wrV5u8LM/XIEX3bsG 9mvdsNOLxbyK4Bv9KlJuJZWGDe8WyV0muiuvJVTedcX6UqeMLaDBDDiGKpurSUELS5 wIaYcm3FiFiNMas5n3uZzyVvCZ4+sjz0vTJpNCNs=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:54:57 -0700
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:58:34 -0000

Hi Mykyta,
At 20:19 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>While I understand that you encourage me to perform the bulk 
>deprecation of Apps-related RFCs, I personally don't think I am 
>technically knowledgeable enough to perform such work.  Deciding on 
>deprecating the RFC required its careful reading and deep technical 
>understanding of its current use and/or its relationships with other 
>RFCs.  My expertise is mostly narrowly-skoped, and I am afraid such 
>work will be impossible for me.

I am saying that you could add the RFCs you would like to see 
reclassified to a list.  Pick a long duration, not every few months, 
before posting the list and asking for feedback.  I am not 
encouraging you to do that.

I would discourage you from performing the bulk deprecation (going 
through all PS) of Apps-related RFCs as people will oppose that.  As 
you mentioned, the work requires careful reading and deep technical 
understanding of the work.  That entails getting the expertise of 
other participants.  Based on the comments that have been posted to 
this list, it doesn't seem that it is viewed as a worthwhile effort.

>When I face some RFC which is obviously obsolete, I propose its 
>reclassifying to Historic.  That's what with SUPDUP.  This is an 
>obvious omission when historicizing RFC 734.  But I don't think I'll 
>be able to propose something worthwhile if I undertake checking up 
>and revising all published PSs.

Yes.  But it has been mentioned that it is book-keeping work.  You 
don't want to have that on your track record.