Hi Warren,
This new text is much more useful, thanks for the follow-up. The only thing I noted that still wasn't quite working was the link here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/ballot/ That gives me a 404. It may be that it doesn't create the actual page until you push the buttons, but it might be worth a quick test once you reach that point, just to make sure there isn't another odd incantation needed here. It also might be the case that this should be a pointer to the ballot for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/
regards,
Ted
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:13 PM Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:02 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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…Ah, I may have found an odd datatracker interaction — I went to restart the IETF LC, and when I clicked "Reset to template text" it generated a much more useful last call text:"The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make thefollowing status changes:- RFC1706 from Informational to Historic(DNS NSAP Resource Records)- RFC1528 from Experimental to Historic(Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing --Technical Procedures)The supporting document for this request can be found here:The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits finalcomments on this action. Please send substantive comments to thelast-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-04-27. Exceptionally, comments maybe sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginningof the Subject line to allow automated sorting.The affected documents can be obtained viaIESG discussion of this request can be tracked via"This is what I was expecting the DT to send — hopefully this makes the entire thing more clear. This Last Call was only supposed to be a support document for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/ and not actually *do* anything itself…Anyway, I'll restart the IETF LC on this status change document with a clarified LC text…WWith 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? :-PWthanks,Ted HardieOn Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:08 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-04-26. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
