[rfc-i] The scope of "Historic"

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Nov 29 09:19:34 PST 2010

Hi, Dave,

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
>> 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 informational but whose content is outdated, e.g.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 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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.

[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 mailing list