[rfc-i] The scope of "Historic"
touch at isi.edu
Mon Nov 29 09:19:34 PST 2010
see below, please...
On 11/29/2010 8:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 8:44 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Overall, in the first 50, at the least the following are clearly
>> not historic. IMO, Historic applies to documents that were previously
>> or BCPs and are no longer recommended. That doesn't apply to docs that
>> informational but whose content is outdated, e.g.
> Your last sentence contradicts both the letter of RFC 2026 and my own
> sense of the label's utility:
> 4.2.4 Historic
> A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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.
[FWIW, the relevant text from 2026 ends here (for others)]
In the sense that there are informational docs that indicate specs (as
per the text in 2026/sec 4.2.4), I agree with you. I'd even extend that
to BCPs (recommendations) as well as specs, regardless of whether they
were published as informational.
The numbers I cited are cases which are not specs or recommendations,
though, and so are not eligible IMO.
Overall, my point is perhaps better stated:
- an informational doc that is or could have been
standards-track or BCP can be made historic
- an informational doc that would never have been
eligible as standards-track or BCP should never be made historic
More information about the rfc-interest