[rfc-i] Proper status for pre-IETF RFCs currently with "unknown" status
Andrew G. Malis
agmalis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 1 04:49:28 PDT 2011
I started all this by reading the IESG's recent statement on moving
RFCs to Historic, and then sending them a request to reclassify six of
my old ARPANET-era RFCs (802, 851, 852, 878, 979, 1005) to Historic.
So I was just doing this for my own pre-IETF RFCs. The IESG sent last
calls on the action to the IETF list, and several people responded
that the IESG shouldn't be mucking about in the pre-IETF RFCs, and
that Historic probably isn't the right classification for them. Thus
my email to this list.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>> There are a whole bunch of pre-IETF RFCs who's status is currently
>> "unknown", including some of mine. I started a bit of a discussion on
>> the IETF list by sending a request to the IESG to change my pre-IETF
>> RFCs to "Historic" status. I've withdrawn that request and I thought
>> we might try to find some consensus on this list of what the proper
>> status is for such RFCs.
> The problem is that it's not obvious. RFCs 768, 791-793, and perhaps 896 should probably be "standard", many should be "historic", and some (consider RFC 970 for example) are white papers that probably deserve to be left as "informational" or "experimental". Consider the many telnet RFCs...
> As I recall, the reason these were left "unknown" way back in the musty dusts of history was that nobody wanted to take the time to sort through them and decide. There isn't a blanket rule that really makes sense.
> Are you volunteering for the historical exercise?
More information about the rfc-interest