Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
Bruce Lilly wrote: ... Aside from the label -- and that's not a clear benefit because Historic is ambiguous -- I don't see much difference between Historic and an Informational RFC with a suitable IESG note (a warning label if you will). There's a difference. For example, imagine a media type called splat/illogical that's been used for some years but is generally considered to be illogically named, and a new media type has been defined to do the same thing: splot/logical It would then be reasonable to document splat/illogical as Historic to explain its IANA registration, and to document splot/logical as Informational. But you're certainly correct that a health warning in the text of the RFC is more important than a status marker in the index. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
Date: 2005-08-28 20:33 From: C. M. Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, RFC 2026 does not set the rules for non-standards track documents, as it explicitly says in Section 2.1. Sorry, I don't see that anywhere in 2.1. 2.1 does say that non-standards track specifications are not subject to the rules for standardization (as in full Standard), but it goes on to point to the rules in 4.2 for Informational and Experimental RFCs. There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it postdates RFC 2026. Interesting. Are there any others? I have heard that an effort to publish a particular obsolete specification as Historic received strong pushback, with the recommendation for publication as Informational. Aside from the label -- and that's not a clear benefit because Historic is ambiguous -- I don't see much difference between Historic and an Informational RFC with a suitable IESG note (a warning label if you will). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
Bruce Lilly wrote: There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it postdates RFC 2026. Interesting. Are there any others? Maybe 4156 (wais) 4157 (prospero). That's a bit special, because it's a part of the effort to get rid of 1738. I have heard that an effort to publish a particular obsolete specification as Historic received strong pushback, with the recommendation for publication as Informational. If you have son-of-1036 in mind, strong pushback isn't how I recall Henry's info - it was more like lacking enthusiasm. I can't check it at the moment. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic? (WAS: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02)
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: The Historic category of published RFCs can be used for documents which specify a protocol or technology which is known to be harmful to the Internet. However, RFC 2026 appears to have no provision for getting to Historic except via the Standards Track [...] What makes you say that? It sure isn't what I read from RFC 2026. It says this in Section 4.2.4: 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.) Seems to me that the proviso is for any other reason considered to be obsolete could reasonably be construed to cover the initial publication of an obsolete specification. It's certainly true that the most common way to get to Historic is to start on the standards track and then get retired, but I see nothing in RFC 2026 that says (or even implies) that this is the only way. //cmh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
Date: 2005-08-28 14:45 From: C. M. Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: The Historic category of published RFCs can be used for documents which specify a protocol or technology which is known to be harmful to the Internet. However, RFC 2026 appears to have no provision for getting to Historic except via the Standards Track [...] What makes you say that? It sure isn't what I read from RFC 2026. It says this in Section 4.2.4: 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.) That defines the sort of documents that fit into the category, but doesn't specify how they get there. It is analogous to 4.2.1 (Experimental) and 4.2.2 (Informational). Seems to me that the proviso is for any other reason considered to be obsolete could reasonably be construed to cover the initial publication of an obsolete specification. It's certainly true that the most common way to get to Historic is to start on the standards track and then get retired, but I see nothing in RFC 2026 that says (or even implies) that this is the only way. The only specific procedures for getting to Historic in 2026 are in sections 6.2 and 6.3 and involve getting to Historic from the Standards Track. Note that section 4.2.3 gives procedures for Informational and Experimental RFCs, but that the only specific procedures for Historic are in sections 6.2 and 6.3. Now I personally wouldn't mind a revision to 2026 where the same procedures for Informational and Experimental were also applicable to Historic (while retaining the mechanisms for migrating from the Standards Track to Historic). For that matter, I'd also prefer to see the procedure modified to include IESG review including IETF Last Call for individual submissions (2026 specifies going directly to the RFC Editor). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to Get to Historic?
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: The only specific procedures for getting to Historic in 2026 are in sections 6.2 and 6.3 and involve getting to Historic from the Standards Track. Note that section 4.2.3 gives procedures for Informational and Experimental RFCs, but that the only specific procedures for Historic are in sections 6.2 and 6.3. RFC 2026 sets the rules for Internet standardization, i.e., it is authoritative with respect to the handling of standards or BCPs. So it's fair to conclude that the procedures in sections 6.2 and 6.3 are the only way for a standards-track document to get to Historic. However, RFC 2026 does not set the rules for non-standards track documents, as it explicitly says in Section 2.1. It is therefore incorrect to conclude from a lack of explicit mention of a mechanism in RFC 2026 that it is impermissible to publish an obsolete specification Historic without going through the standards track. There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it postdates RFC 2026. //cmh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
