Re: Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-01

Doug,

2011/1/28 Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>

> Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2 at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > I'm writing to request the review of
> > draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-01, that could be found here:
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-01.txt
>
> The document says:
>
> 2.1. Criteria for Historic RFCs
>
>   If the RFC is replaced by another one, it SHALL be considered to be
>   superseded.
>
>   The RFC SHALL be considered to be obsolete if it meets the following
>   criteria:
>
>     a. It has been publicly available for at least 7 years;
>
>     b. During this period of time the technology, described in this RFC
>     has not been seen used in the Internet; or
>
>     c. The technology defined in this RFC is not possible or is not
>     advised to be used in the Internet because of its security issues,
>     impact on its performance or any other reason.
>
> I'd like to see some kind of guideline that the RFC should not be
> considered obsolete solely because of security or performance concerns
> in some particular, specific context.  For example, the fact that
> vanilla FTP is not sufficiently secure for use in some applications
> where high security is paramount is not a rationale for deprecating FTP
> in all applications.
>
In the case I mentioned as c the key words are 'is not possible or is not
advised to be used in the Internet' but not what you mentioned.  The phrase
'or any other reason' is put because there is no possibility to put the
exhaustive list of such purposes.   Anyway, what would you like to propose
here?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> The phrase "or any other reason" seems unnecessarily open-ended, and may
> invite abuse.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>