Re: Another process question

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

>  but it seems kind of busy-work
> to also have to do an RFC to explain why...

the reason to have a RFC "to explain why" is so that someone
in 5 years can find out why

> The explanation is that it has only been implemented by
> one vendor and that vendor's author is not sure they
> still use it (he will check).

so why bother?

if its not hurting anyone what is gained by moving it to historic?

in my mind random moving of things to historic when they 
are not causing any problem dilutes the usefulness of historic
as a warning sign.

Scott