[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I
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outdated, e.g. (please don't argue each one in this list; it's just a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):
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?
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
More information about the rfc-interest