Subject: Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:24:01 -0500

Before today, Bob Braden wrote:
> Historic might imply that they were once in service, 
> but have later been replaced/deprecated. In fact, these 
> protocols were always, and are still, *experimental*. 
> It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental 
> category and be done with it.

+1

Subsequently, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, I think that the problem is the 
> definition of Historic status. It is not correct.

I disagree that the definition of Historic status is incorrect.
Separately, I think there is an underlying procedural confusion 
lurking here.  

First, it is important to recall that not all RFCs are 
IETF RFCs.

Second, many RFCs (both long ago and continuing now) were 
published as Individual Submissions to the RFC-Editor, 
or by the IAB, or by the IRTF.  Such RFCs are not IETF RFCs.

Meanwhile, moving a document from some status to Historic 
is most frequently an IETF/IESG process (and having the IESG
make the reclassification seems to be what was suggested 
for these ancient RFCs).  However, the IESG lacks authority 
to change unilaterally the status of a non-IETF-track 
RFC.

This is why, for example, it is important that the recent 
I-Ds about deprecating RFC-1320 and RFC-1321, the 
Informational status Individual Submission track RFCs 
that specify MD4 and MD5 respectively, already specifically 
note that the author(s) of the original RFCs agree(s) 
to the reclassification from Informational status to 
Historic status. [1]

As an earlier note from Bob Braden to this list observed, 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65034.html>
the 3 ancient RFCs being discussed are experimental 
(i.e. not on the IETF standards-track). 

So far as I know (NB: I wasn't involved with the 4 RFCs 
being discussed in this thread :-) none of the 4 RFCs being 
discussed in this thread was published on the IETF track.

Yours,

Ran

[1] An Aside: 
I agree that the reclassification is sensible technically, 
and am very happy that the author of the I-Ds proposing 
reclassification has obtained consent from the original 
author(s), and am also very happy that the original authors
agreed to the reclassification of their non-IETF RFCs.
Following the correct process is important.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:55:07 -0700

Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco dot com> wrote:

> So RDP is a useful and deployed pre-standards protocol that was one of the
> driving forces behind a successful standardization effort.  But newer
> applications that need that kind of transport instead use the standard,
> SCTP.
> 
> I don't know how one could possibly make a stronger case for classifying the
> RDP spec as Historic!

If "Historic" has taken on the connotation of "this spec is deprecated,
don't use it any more," then to the extent it is useful and deployed,
this would send the wrong message.  Just like FTP.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s