On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:46 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not think this last call is well-formed. There is no link to the document and it is not available via the datatracker. It's difficult to see how the community can successfully give advice on a matter with no document (and not even an abstract).May I ask that the IESG consider re-issuing this last call with the appropriate pointers?
This is probably my fault - we don't do very many status-changes, and figuring out how to drive the datatracker for this is hard — the DT usually sucks in the Abstract automatically and populates the Last Call text, but because a status-change document isn't *really* a document it didn't seem to do so…
With that said, this is **just** the Status-Change document, and there is a link to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/
This notes that this document is the status-change (as suggested by https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/ and will be replaced when the "actual" document is published):
"At some point, it is sent to an appropriate AD to request publication. The AD creates a status-change document, with an explanation that points to the I-D. The I-D and the status-change are then last-called together, after which the IESG evaluates and ballots on both."
The **actual** document (which is also in Last Call) is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/
So, this just notes that draft-davies-int-historic is making some documents historic, and that you should read that. This whole change process is somewhat baroque, especially if there is a draft doing it — someone writes a draft, it gets last-called, and you *also* have a status-change document which also gets last-called, and then the status-change document disappears in a poof of smoke and the ID replaces it when it becomes an RFC….
Anyway, I'll try abort this LC, and restart it with 1: TCP fixed to TPC (assuming that I can stop my fingers from autocorrecting it) and 2: the status-change text (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/) copied into the Abstract / LC text…
Wheee, are we having process fun yet? :-P
W
thanks,Ted HardieOn Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:08 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf. > wrote:org
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF (iesg) to consider the following document: - 'Moving TCP.INT and
NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic'
<status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt>
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@ietf. mailing lists by 2022-04-26. Exceptionally, comments mayorg
be sent to iesg@ietf. instead. In either case, please retain the beginningorg
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The file can be obtained via
https:// datatracker. ietf. org/ doc/ status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf. org
https:// www. ietf. org/ mailman/ listinfo/ ietf-announce
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
