[Old-standards] Brief Procedural Proposal

[Pekka Savola]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> I'd say that for the remaining documents, which would get moved to 
>> historic, someone(s) should generate some reason why we think they should 
>> be moved to historic -- this doesn't need to be complicated, just one 
>> sentence or the like. ("why we believe nobody is caring about this RFC 
>> anymore..")
>
> How about "obsolete" or "not in use"?  Seriously.  There are some cases where 
> that really will be the reason.

I was looking for a bit more information than that, but we'll see when 
we get there..

>>> Finally, if someone wants to remove an RFC from the list and others 
>>> object, the others should write a small draft indicating why the RFC 
>>> should be downgraded.  In other words, follow the alternative procedure 
>>> and gain consensus within the IETF.
>> 
>> This is an OK approach, though I'd prefer that before we begin the 
>> "name-calling", we should try to formulate a description of what it means 
>> to move the document to historic, similar to an introduction for a draft 
>> which might include the list of RFCs.
>
> Ok, but let's defer that discussion until we have a disagreement.

No, I think this is very important to put at the web page before we 
start.  Otherwise different people will have a lot of different 
assumptions on what making a document historic means, and which 
documents to call for non-crufty.

Now that we have the web page, there is no actual harm in actually 
putting it there _now_, except that we would have to figure out 
something generic to say now.

See below..

> I think the reasons for keeping a standard are the following:
>
> 1.  It's in general use; or
> 2.  There is no better way to accomplish what that standard does,
>    and what it does would still need doing in a new implementation; or
> 3.  It's currently being revised.
>
> This leaves the cases where [1] and [2] conflict.  Those cases require more 
> thought.  I'd suggest we defer those until the second round.  They will 
> likely require more detailed explanation as to why they should be demoted (if 
> at all).

The key point is communicating the information of 1) and 2) to the 
reader of the list.

Therefore I propose putting something like below on the web page:

<p> <B>NOTE!</b> Many RFCs are still in use in an obscure part of the 
universe, in legacy deployments, even though standardization might 
have ceased, e.g., 5-10 years ago, and no new deployments using these 
technologies have not been done for many years. "Historic" is 
considered an appropriate category for such specifications, indicating 
the fact that there is no desire or intent to continue the 
specification in that area.

... just something to say, "even if you know it's used in some legacy 
deployments does not mean it can't go out on Historic".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings