--On Friday, October 18, 2024 10:13 -0500 Pete Resnick <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18 Oct 2024, at 0:46, John C Klensin wrote: > >> --On Thursday, October 17, 2024 23:58 -0500 Pete Resnick >> <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> That should be mentioned in the Protocol Action announcement, and >>> the RFC Editor should do the right thing their Internet Standard >>> status page, but it doesn't need to be said in the document. >>> Compare RFC 9293, which is now STD 7, and obsoleted RFC 793, but >>> nowhere does it say that it is "removing the Internet Standard >>> status" from 793. >>> >>> I say leave things as they are in the document. >> >> The only thing that causes me to feel strongly about this is that >> encountered a situation fairly recently where someone claimed that >> an implementation that conformed to RFC 5321 was incorrect >> because RFC 821 was the Internet Standard for mail transport by >> SMTP. > > Presumably the new document being an Internet Standard will solve > that sort of problem in the future, save your next point: > >> In an odd way, your example involving using RFC 793 supports my >> point: if you retrieve the text form rfc-index from the RFC >> Editor site, you will find that, while the "STD 7" designation is >> gone, the Status listed is not, e.g., Historic but "Internet >> Standard". Same issue if one goes to https://rfc-editor.org/ >> end enters "793" in the search box: the page that turns up says >> "Internet Standard" in the Status column. > > Well, that is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed. > >> Now if, in one of your other capacities, you want to push through >> a rule that says that, when one document obsoletes another, the >> status of the obsoleted one is changed to Historic (or something >> else, but not a BCP or Standards Track designation), I'd be >> delighted. Of course, that would need IESG and RSAB signoff, >> community consensus or at least consultation, possibly a >> published document, etc. That should ideally get done before >> IETF 121 ends so as to not hold up either 5322bis or 5321bis. > > Given that being any sort of Standard is entirely an IETF > designation, this seems mostly on the IESG, though it certainly > will require some action on the part of the RFC Editor. I am > perfectly happy to use my RSWG hat for good and get at least > something done during 121 to make something happen for 5321bis and > 5322bis. I think it should perfectly clear what happens when one > Internet Standard status document obsoletes one whose STD number it > is taking over. Whether in general there ought to be a rule about > changing the status of a document based on the "Obsoletes" mark in > a document that is not an Internet Standard is an entirely > different can of worms. > >> I would, of course, also like a pony. > > I'll try to make sure that the saddle has sparkly sequins. > > Either way, this sounds like a discussion that can be taken off of > some of these lists for the moment. Agreed. john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
