Re: Finger to Historic

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:45 PM Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >  < snip>
>
> > What Historic means in IETF terms is that IETF process has finished.
>
> it sure did not mean that when I edited RFC 2026
>
> since RFC 793 has not been actually updated since RFC 3168 in 2001 I guess
> it is time to move it to Historic
>

Its actually one of the more frequently updated RFCs.

Updated by: 3667 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3667>, 3668
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3668>, 3932
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3932>, 3978
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978>, 3979
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979>, 5378
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378>, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
5657 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5657>, 5742
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742>, 6410
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410>, 7100
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100>, 7127
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127>, 7475
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7475>,
8179 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179>, 8789
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8789> Errata Exist


RFC 6410 - Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels (ietf.org)
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410>
RFC 7127 - Characterization of Proposed Standards (ietf.org)
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127>

4.2.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4>  Historic

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have suggested that the
   word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
   "Historic" is historical.)


You are nitpicking there and getting it wrong.

IETF continues to publish errata after a WG has closed. That represents a
continuation of the IETF process in my view. While some folk successfully
blocked a formal ongoing review of existing standards in the 1980s and
1990s, this has not been how the IETF actually works for at least a decade.

While I admit it is possible that an errata might be accepted for an
Historic document, I really can't imagine a case where a defect were so
egregious as to require an errata but not a new document.


Just as RFCs have never been a 100% accurate guide to behavior on the wire,
IETF process has diverged to an even greater degree.

And how the IETF behaves and the behavior most likely to obtain the desired
ends have also frequently diverged.