Re: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I was in the rough on that one in 2005, but since we're looking at another bulk recategorization effort, I might make this suggestion again - perhaps we could define a new level, which might be called something like "Not Maintained", with the criteria as, "we can't identify anyone who is willing and able to maintain the specification" That's actually something the IETF COULD know. We could ask, and if we hear crickets, "Not Maintained". If somebody shows up later, recategorize.

Part of the problem is the expectation that some single label should entirely define the status of a specification.   There are several almost-orthogonal variables that the community cares about (or should care about):

- currency - does the document (still) reflect best current practice for implementations of this protocol to work well?
- maintenance status - is the specification still being actively maintained?
- technical soundness - does the protocol described meet current criteria for technical soundness?  (okay, this is similar to currency)
- applicability - is this protocol (still) recommended for general use in this space, or for use only in corner cases, or is its use generally discouraged (presumably in favor of something else)?
- maturity - has this specification been implemented for long enough and enough times to have confidence in the quality of the protocol described and the specification for it?
- market penetration - is the protocol widely used in practice?  is it generally necessary for applications in this space to support it?

Trying to collapse all of these into X standard / informational / experimental / historic quite naturally leads to some tension between different interpretations of those terms.

Keith