Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Historically, "documenting for reference" produces an Informational status, >> rather than Historic. > > Yes, and the idea was to make a stronger statement than "for reference". > iirc, we considered briefly approving it for Informational and then > immediately reclassifying it as Historic. But that seemed silly.
If the IETF wanted to "make a statement" why not merely add text that makes the desired statement? Again, this has been the usual approach. Why change from that? Going to Informational and then Historic would, indeed, be silly. It confuses the semantics of Informational, since it implies that Informational has some sort of standards status. The model that has the IETF focus heavily on matters of "precedence", particularly with respect to specifications that are not standards track, seems questionable, at best. It means that rather than relying on questions of technical efficacy, scaling, and the like, the IESG is instead worrying about future, hypothetical, unstated human abuses. At the least: > concern that the format not become a precedent > for future media types should produce explicit text added to the document, so that readers can understand whatever problems there are with this approach. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf