Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 10/2/2013 11:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
>
> --On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
>> As in, duh...
>
> "Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents to Historic for many
> reasons.

Sure.  And you seem to think that it's important to publish an RFC that 
documents the reasons.  You seem to think that it will somehow affect 
later handling of the historic document.

While an entirely reasonable theoretical premise, I'm not aware of its 
having any empirical basis.  Quite the opposite.

Further since your proposal constitutes additional work for someone, the 
benefit of doing it should be clear and compelling.  So far, what you've 
offered is neither.

In fact, the general view around the IETF is that the rest of the world 
deals with RFCs in a very coarse and inclusive manner, so that your 
proposal for fine-grained, formal documentation of rationales and the 
like constitutes mere noise to the rest of the world.


> The situation would be different if a huge amount of additional
> work were involved but it seems to me that almost all of the
> required explanation is already in the write-up and that the
> amount of effort required to approve an action consisting of a
> document and a status change is the same as that required to
> approve the status change only.

While it's laudable that you are volunteering to do this negligible 
extra work that will cause negligible amounts of additional delay, it 
still suffers the problem of producing negligible additional benefit.

If someone is all that interested in the reason the spec was moved to 
Historic, they can consult the IETF archives.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net