Noel, Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:34 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; v6...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues) > > > From: Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > > > RFC 2026's very terse definition of HISTORIC. According to RFC > 2026, > > "A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 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." That's the entire definition. > > Anything more is read into it. > > ... > > A more likely interpretation is as follows: > > "the IETF is not likely to invest effort in the technology in the > > future" > > "the IETF does not encourage (or discourage) new deployments of > this > > technology. > > But in giving other interpretations, are you thereby not comitting the > exact error you call out above: "Anything more is read into it."? > > To me, "Historic" has always (including pre-2026) meant just what the > orginal meaning of the word is (caveat - see below) - something that is > now likely only of interest to people who are looking into the history > of > networking. (The dictionary definition is "Based on or concerned with > events in history".) I think "obsolete" is probably the best one-word > description (and note that 'obsolete' != 'obsolescent'). > > (Caveat: technically, it probably should have been 'historical', not > "historic" - "historic" actually means 'in the past, but very > noteworthy', > e.g. 'CYCLADES was a historic networking design', so not every > historical > protocol is historic.) > > Noel _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf