Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 1/14/13 1:18 PM, "David Conrad" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>John,
>
>Just to be clear:
>
>On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:19 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On those general subjects -- that trying to open the question of
>> 2050 is a rat hole and that we should not go down it, we
>> completely agree.
>
>If the choice is leaving 2050 as is or reopening it to update it to
>reflect modern reality, I'd favor the latter.  I actually think the good
>parts of 2050 are probably covered in other documents and as such it's
>safe to unceremoniously bury 2050 in the back yard, but haven't bothered
>to actually verify this.

I would not support moving rfc2050 to Historic on the basis of your
"probably."  Absent a document that updates/obsoletes 2050, I can't think
of any good that would come of moving it to Historic.

This draft also moves rfc1366 and rfc1466 to Historic, though I note that
rfc2050 obsoleted 1466, which replaced 1366.
For rfc2050, I would want discussions of the points made in the original
document, and notice of where the current status is documented.  Much of
it is still true, and is still BCP.

Lee