[rfc-i] An arbitrary example

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Nov 7 15:52:37 PST 2011

Hi Frank,
At 13:43 07-11-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>That is misleading, RFC 2822 should be "historic"
>or something, it was completely replaced by RFC 5322.

It's better not to do that when there are existing implementations 
based on the specification.  In a nutshell, Historic should not be 

>In theory a PS could be promoted to DS without a new
>RFC, but that didn't happen for RFC 2822.  And I'm

That has happened in practice.

>Maybe the new IESG "historic" rules mean that we are
>encouraged to find and report such oddities, i.e.,
>RFC 2821 + 2822 should be stamped as "historic" RFCs
>to minimize the confusion of innocent bystanders.

There are times when the IESG provides guidance but they are read as 
rules.  Each time "we" try to minimize the confusion of bystanders, 
the end-result is more confusion.  I doubt that the average 
participant would find my original message clear.  It was a mix of 
standards and RFCs.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list