Re: graveyard: deprecate->historic

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:41:11PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 
> > "this document" (i.e., the RFC-to-be) does not actually effecuate the move
> > to Historic status; the separate "status-change" document does so.  Looking
> > at a recent example in RFC 8429, we see this phrased akin to "Accordingly,
> > IKEv1 has been moved to Historic status" with no claim of doing so because
> > of the current document.
> 
> Changed, see https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-04.txt
> 
> Paul
> 
> >>  requests IANA to close all IKEv1 registries.
> >> 
> >> 2: Change section title
> >> 
> >> s/Deprecating IKEv1/RFC 2409 to Historic
> >
> > This is probably okay to keep (I see Paul took the changes already), but
> > the first sentence is still "IKEv1 is deprecated", which is sending mixed
> > signals.
> 
> Is it a mixed signal? I've left the sentence in for now, but I'm fine if
> we decide to remove it. I can always do that after adoption when I need
> to re-submit the draft under the new name anyway.

I guess it's not entirely clear.
https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/
implies that "Historic" is for technology that is "retired", but in some
usage, "deprecated" has more of a connotation of "not the best choice right
now" which is not necessarily fully "retired".

We can leave it as-is for now.

-Ben