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

Frank Ellermann <> Fri, 08 July 2011 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3676521F8C17 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.024
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9TJeHxt4lnL4 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3D921F8C11 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so1810108pvh.31 for <>; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qOhEpeKUF7K18uyGBGV4HLiEGs9taa5Er6SyDx8rVzM=; b=Za57j5zagVeztCNItf6ho0lWXK1eJUHkO9Ec5cWim4ZMFZjQLDexjo+98x4EPrY/C6 eBHatnf4OxaoQlzwaH35XRzRsszpMzF7A+UtDyOdOzGy1zH0Jlz65OarPSeHkzPfl6A3 8oLmejbf0Us0zKYUYf9MZG/KxFsXP1MgRodOc=
Received: by with SMTP id m8mr448516wfg.351.1310149846169; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 20:30:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: SM <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 18:30:47 -0000

On 8 July 2011 12:54, SM <> wrote:

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

IBTD, cleaning up the mess left by others is very important
work, e.g., the FTP URI draft is AFAIK the last missing
piece to finally get rid of RFC 1783 references in other

The "bulk deprecation" some years ago was brilliant, on
the same level as "ABNF to STD".  I certainly hope that the
SMTP + message format authors will soon do the bookkeeping
work to fix the minor errata in their documents and publish
them as STDs, you know what the "current" STDs still are.

I have not the faintest idea what "SUPDUP" is or was, and
I won't check it -- the risk that I like it and/or waste
time with it is too high.  But if somebody has the time to
clean up "SUPDUP" for hopefully sound reasons I would not
wish to stand in the way claiming that work done by others
wastes my time.