Re: Informationals to Historic?

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

Some parts are clearly wrong -- e.g., the listed administrators
of the domain.

But, how much (if any) of the described naming structure is still
relevant?

If the naming structure is no longer in use, or has significantly
changed, I could see moving the document to historic.

Personal opinion, of course.

Leslie.

Peterson, Jon wrote:
> What do you think about RFC1480? Toxic or merely irrelevant?
>
> - J
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:44 PM
> > To: Peterson, Jon; 'iesg@ietf.org'
> > Subject: Re: Informationals to Historic?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --On tirsdag, juli 01, 2003 16:06:11 -0500 "Peterson, Jon" 
> > <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Do we ever move Informational documents to Historic status, when the
> > > practices they describe are no longer meaningful or valid? 
> > Or is Historic
> >
> > > reserved for actual standards?
> > in the cases we've done it, it's been because what they 
> > describe isn't just 
> > no longer meaningful, it's toxic.
> >
> > I don't see much reason to waste cycles on doing so.
> >
> >              Harald