--On Friday, January 21, 2022 15:52 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> More broadly (and as explained in probably too much detail >> in a > note I sent last night), I think that either the IETF (or, > better, the RFC Editor Function as Brian suggested) should > initiate a project to clean out those old specs > > Such a project sounds good, but I worry about the best being > the enemy of the goodXXXX any incremental progress. On the other hand, considering all of the pre-IETF documents that have so far been listed as "UNKNOWN", one at a time with one Last Call per document and on-list negotiation of how the permanent statement about the action should read strikes me a horribly expensive in IETF Community and IESG time even though it would probably constitute "incremental progress". Conversely, if this particular document is sufficiently special that it should be treated as a one-off, with no notion of incremental-anything, I don't think we have seen an explanation of that special-ness yet. > And the RFC Editor doesn't seem to have the technical > knowledge, or industry segment experience to decide. Brian probably has a better explanation, but the RFC Editor Function is the only group that has a legitimate claim of responsibility for those old documents. If the new RFC Editor Model cannot organize a process to deal with them, a process that might include assigning some of them and their fate to the IETF, we had both better scurry over to that mailing list and figure out how to fix that. john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
