Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

[[e-mail] (Maria Greene)]

Bert, you are quite right. Would "Informational" status relieve
people's concerns? If not, please speak up.

Maria

>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Wijnen <[e-mail]> writes:

    Bert> Ref: Your note of Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:41:03 -0400 Subject:
    Bert> Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

    Bert> Maria writes:
    >> Thanks, Bob and Harald, for explaining the procedure. Yes,
    >> there is work to do if we want the RFC to advance and my sense
    >> is that there's noone willing to help with it. Correct me if
    >> I'm wrong by volunteering. A change to Historic will not make
    >> the MIB less useful (or make any referencing documents less
    >> correct) and I doubt many customers check the standards process
    >> status when evaluating products.
    >> 
    Bert> Historic may give the impression it is NOT used or no longer
    Bert> used.  Maybe we can move it to "INFORMATIONAL". We do not
    Bert> have a category of "good enough"... and as far as I can tell
    Bert> INFORMATIONAL comes closest to "good enough".

    Bert> When moving to HISTORIC you need do nothing.  When moving to
    Bert> INFORMATIONAL, you may have to add things like security
    Bert> section and such.

    Bert> Bert