Hi, just pointing out that this is not something the IESG initiated. As the email says, the request came from the community. Also want to point out that asking the RFC Editor to develop the ability to take on these evaluations of pre-IETF documents is a significant ask, especially as the ideas in many of them have moved to the the IETF stream in later years. In practice, I’d assume that the RFC editor would consult the IESG in pretty much all cases. Thanks, Lars -- Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos. > On Jan 21, 2022, at 00:34, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the > following status changes: > > - RFC911 from Unknown to Historic > (EGP Gateway under Berkeley UNIX 4.2) > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc911-to-historic/ > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The affected document can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc911/ > > IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc911-to-historic/ballot/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
