--On Friday, February 18, 2022 11:54 -0800 Rob Sayre
<sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:50 AM John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Alvaro,
>>
>> Just to be sure the record is clear, there were objections to
>> changing the status of RFC 911. They were not claims that 911
>> is still of active interest but objections to the idea of
>> making changes to the status of _any_ status "Unknown"
>> document, especially of that vintage, without a coherent plan
>> about what to do about all of the others.
>>
>
> Yes, and I'm not sure there was agreement on whether to do
> anything at all.
My guess is that there was near-consensus for doing nothing,
which is certainly consistent with the IESG decision. Again, my
concern was about documentation, not action or the lack thereof.
> fwiw, I think "Unknown" is a perfectly accurate description,
> so I'm not sure why we'd do the paperwork on these.
In many or most cases, we really do know and what we know is
whether the spec is something we would encourage people to run
out and implement, with the expectation that would be useful to
the contemporary Internet, or not.
If someone, probably after the new RFC Editor Model is in place
and running smoothly, felt really inspired to reopen this, we
could globally change "Unknown" to "Ancient" (or some synonym
for it) that, like "Unknown", would have no negative
implications but would lower the odds of anyone getting excited
about just why we don't know. My guess is that would cause lot
of work for nearly no benefit, but others might disagree.
john
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
