IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?

Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Wed, 31 August 2005 02:29 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAILn-0008E4-DR; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAILl-0008Bx-9s for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25085 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns4a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.138] helo=ns4.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAINP-0005VD-Gs for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:31:00 -0400
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B62C29A00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j7V2TEN1016967(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com /etc/sendmail.mc.mail 1.26 2005/06/24 20:47:59) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:14 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j7V2TEVw016966(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08 12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:14 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: ietf@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:29:12 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <4amb37$aq8r8o@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4amb37$aq8r8o@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200508302229.12923@mail.blilly.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

>  Date: 2005-08-28 20:33
>  From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>

> However, RFC 2026 does not set the rules for
> non-standards track documents, as it explicitly says in Section
> 2.1.

Sorry, I don't see that anywhere in 2.1.  2.1 does say that non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for standardization (as
in full Standard), but it goes on to point to the rules in 4.2 for
Informational and Experimental RFCs.

> There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341.  Note that it postdates
> RFC 2026.

Interesting.  Are there any others?  I have heard that an effort to publish
a particular obsolete specification as Historic received strong pushback,
with the recommendation for publication as Informational.

Aside from the label -- and that's not a clear benefit because Historic is
ambiguous -- I don't see much difference between Historic and an
Informational RFC with a suitable IESG note (a "warning label" if you will).

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email