[Old-standards] Example web page...

[Eliot Lear]

Hi,

I've updated the page with a note about RFC 1752 needing to be moved to 
another status.

Eliot


Robert Elz wrote:
> It seems that a collective good job has been done in "un-deleting"
> the RFCs that shouldn't move from PS to Historic.
> 
> There's just one in there (aside from a couple that have already
> been mentioned and are remaining "for discussion" or something) that
> I don't believe should be historic.
> 
> That's 1752.
> 
> But it shouldn't remain PS either.   If it had been written today,
> there's no way it would have been PS, it would have been a BCP.
> Re-classifying it as a BCP now would perhaps be just a bit too
> far over the top, but Informational would be a much better state
> for it than Historic.
> 
> (I'd kind of like to see a new category of RFC types, for a few
> of those remaining on the list for which "Historic" - as in,
> "this is the way it used to be, but isn't relevant any more"
> isn't really appropriate, and for which the interpretation
> should be "this was a truly horrible idea, but we either didn't
> realise it at the time, or politics forced it in anyway" - I have
> a name in mind, but it isn't all that polite, so I'll skip that.
> I suspect that is outside the ambit of this group though, so this
> parenthetical remark never really happened).
> 
> kre
> 
> ps:  One minor request.   Could the comments on the web page that
> indicate why an RFC has been removed from the death list
> perhaps be made more visually distinct - maybe in italics, or
> something like that (even just indented differently), so they
> don't appear quite as much like the title of an RFC as they now do.
> 
> 
>