(FYI)
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>>> I had occasion to coordinate the transfer of responsibility from the
>>> IETF to IEEE for some work, and had to spend significant effort
>>> working through the copyright issues and the migration issues
>>> (RFC4663). The work being transferred in RFC4663 is an IETF standard,
>>> whereas RFC2731 is only Informational, so that could make a lot of
>>> difference, but there is simply no discussion at all of copyright
>>> issues and migration issues. And the reasons why RFC2731 is not still
>>> considered valid (just an earlier version), or why this step to
>>> declare the RFC Historic is being done are extremely light. Is it to
>>> prevent it being used because this old version and the updated work
>>> cannot coexist? or do we just not like this one any more?
>>
>> Well, it's not up-to-date anymore. Don't use it. Look elsewhere.
>>
>> If this means that moving it to "Historic" is the wrong thing, I'll be
>> happy to remove that part.
>> ...
>
> In the meantime, I asked the IESG for advice on this. Their feedback was
> that "historic" is inaccurate here, as the specified format still is in
> use, and still recommended to be used.
>
> Thus, I have removed the parts of reclassifying as "historic" in
> <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-04.txt>.
>
> BR, Julian
>
|