[Old-standards] Re: Historic (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On lørdag, desember 18, 2004 11:51:56 -0800 Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU> 
wrote:

>   *> >>
>   *> > This must be some new redefinition of the meaning of a Historic
> RFC.   *> > In the past, it meant "don't do it this way anymore, we no
> longer   *> > recommend it, there's another way to accomplish the same
> goal".   *> > So, for the PPP items listed, what's the better way to
> accomplish the   *> > same goal?
>   *>
>   *> No, it's the old definition of Historic.
>   *>
>
> Harald,
>
> I am puzzled by your comment.  I believe that Bill Simpson is correct
> about the "old" (historic) definition of Historic category, defined by
> Jon Postel.  Jon believed that if you have a standard defining
> interoperability, it is ALWAYS a standard unless there is a compelling
> reason to warn people away.  The IETF can change the meaning of
> Historic, but let's not change history.
>

With all respect to Jon Postel - the IETF's meaning of Historic is defined 
by reference to IETF consensus, not to Jon Postel's opinion.

We may be confused by different meanings of "old" - I was referring to 1994.

Shows how young I am, I guess :-)

                      Harald