Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

08.01.2011 18:12, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> 07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> Mykyta,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT (RFC998). Initially there have been proposed to define IANA considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more wider discussion on this topic.
>>> I see little value even thinking about this.  It's looks like a "make work" project to me.  Just because something is "old", doesn't mean it is "historic" in the sense the label is used in the IETF.
>>>
>>> Regarding RDP (RFC908, RFC1151), of which I am one of the authors, both are currently labeled as Experimental.  I do not see any reason to change that.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> RFC2026 mentions:
>>
>>>   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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.
>> and gives 2 reasons for making the RFC Historic: 1) RFC is obsoleted (superseded) or 2) obsolete.
>>
>> Obsoleted = made obsolete. This is obvious. When one RFC replaces another, it obsoletes it, and second becomes obsolete.
>>
>> What is obsolete (adj.)? Obsolete = deprecated, outdated, out of use, non-current, etc.
>>
>> Moreover, RFC2026 does not set any other guidelines for setting the Historic status.
> that is because only standard track protocols need such guidelines
Where is that, once more?
>> That is why if the protocol is out of use, even specified by Experimental RFC, it is a reason to move its spec. to Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.
> First, you said RFC2026 did *not* say anything on moving non-standard protocols to Historic status.
>
> Then you said Experimental RFCs need to move to Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.
RFC2026 in Section 4.2.4. says nothing about this.  It is indefinite, 
per this section.  What you said 'first' was what do all think.  And the 
second what I do.  And maybe not need to move but may be moved.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Doesn't this sound self-conflicting to you?
>
> Lixia
>
>