[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Nov 29 08:44:14 PST 2010


Overall, this proposal lacks a description of the principles used (e.g., 
"all meetings to be relabeled as Informational, all protocols to be 
relabeled as Historic").

The principles I could determine are inconsistently applied (why should 
Informational apply to RFC37 but Historic to RFC35 - even though 35 is 
already marked Informational, even if erroneously?).

Overall, in the first 50, at the least the following are clearly 
informational, not historic. IMO, Historic applies to documents that 
were previously standards or BCPs and are no longer recommended. That 
doesn't apply to docs that are informational but whose content is 
outdated, e.g. (please don't argue each one in this list; it's just a 
strawman to make the point):
	3
	17
	29
	32
	34
	35
	36
	39
	49
	43
	44
	46
	47

This exercise is a good reason why older docs should NOT be relabeled by 
current conventions. They were never written with that consideration, 
and such labels simply aren't appropriate.

FWIW, these RFCs are already marked in the index as Stream:Legacy. Why 
isn't that enough?

Joe

On 11/28/2010 8:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> What is your motivation for this work? Is there an actual need for knowing the status of any of these RFCs? Is it just a desire for tidiness?
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list