[rfc-i] The scope of "Historic"
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 09:07:26 PST 2010
On Nov 29, 2010, at 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 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 informational but whose content is outdated, e.g.
> 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 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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.
> Even an Informational document is sometimes worth noting as obsolete. That is, it can be helpful to the community to put up a "proceed with caution" sign around the document.
> By the same token, there mere fact that an Informational document is old and/or that no one uses what it documents does not make it "obsolete". Historical should be confined to explicit community assessment that the thing is best not followed.
I was talking to some former BBN colleagues about publishing BBN report 1822 (Arpanet host to IMP interface) as an RFC. Assuming I can get permission from BBN, I was thinking this should be submitted as "Historic". How would this fit your definition?
More information about the rfc-interest